Atlas Forum

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Regional Governments => Topic started by: Barnes on September 27, 2009, 05:17:16 pm



Title: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 27, 2009, 05:17:16 pm
(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/3715_27_09_09_6_14_23.jpg)

Welcome to the Northeast Assembly! :)

Once the Representatives have taken their oaths (or at least a majority of Reps.), business can begin! :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 27, 2009, 07:37:35 pm
Here is the official page for the Assembly: http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_Assembly#Assemblies


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 28, 2009, 05:34:38 am
I, Antonio V, solemnly swear...

Well, what should I swear ? :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on September 28, 2009, 09:01:10 am
I, Antonio V, solemnly swear...

Well, what should I swear ? :P

To do a damn fine job?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 28, 2009, 09:40:12 am
I, Antonio V, solemnly swear...

Well, what should I swear ? :P

To do a damn fine job?

Ok, let's go ! :D


Is the session officially opened, Mister Lt Gov ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 28, 2009, 09:57:31 am
Is the session officially opened, Mister Lt Gov ?

I think we should adress Lt. Governor "Mr. President", as he's a presiding officer of the assembly, but it's just a protoloc ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 28, 2009, 10:05:55 am
Is the session officially opened, Mister Lt Gov ?

I think we should adress Lt. Governor "Mr. President", as he's a presiding officer of the assembly, but it's just a protoloc ;)

Right.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 28, 2009, 10:09:03 am
Not to clutter the Assembly floor, but could someone kindly provide a basic primer on how the Northeast Assembly changes our current regional process of passing law?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on September 28, 2009, 12:17:13 pm
Well as your first order of business you should probably establish legislative rules such as leadership in the chamber, just as we did in the First Mideast Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 28, 2009, 12:32:12 pm
Well as your first order of business you should probably establish legislative rules such as leadership in the chamber, just as we did in the First Mideast Assembly.

I think they are expressed clearly enough on the Amendment : First we discuss, then we vote. Lt Governor is the President of the Assembly and votes only to break a tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on September 28, 2009, 01:11:05 pm
Just a friendly reminder to the Assembly. Elections will be coming up next month, I know this just started, but all of those who are interested in staying past next month should make sure to declare.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 28, 2009, 01:39:09 pm
Smid for Speaker/Preisding Officer!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 28, 2009, 01:43:54 pm
Just a friendly reminder to the Assembly. Elections will be coming up next month, I know this just started, but all of those who are interested in staying past next month should make sure to declare.

Well, we have until Friday 9, right ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on September 28, 2009, 01:49:36 pm
Just a friendly reminder to the Assembly. Elections will be coming up next month, I know this just started, but all of those who are interested in staying past next month should make sure to declare.

Well, we have until Friday 9, right ?

That is correct.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 28, 2009, 03:35:35 pm
I'd like to say, that I'll be seeking the position of Deputy President of the Assembly. As you all remember, I raised a topic to needs of such position long before passing of the amendment and be happy to work in this, if elected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 28, 2009, 03:46:41 pm
Sorry fellow Representatives, looks like I acted little to quickly this time ;)

Since Smid is running for the position I'll drop out and support him 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 28, 2009, 04:16:25 pm
With all Representatives having taken their oaths, the Assembly is now in session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 28, 2009, 04:32:56 pm
Mr. President, fellow Representatives

I would like to take a floor for a moment just in order to express my deep satisfaction, as our Region citizes, to see finally well-needed Assembly in work and, as a Representative, to express my great pride that I can serve in this first, historic session.

I strongly believe that we can all together, regardless of our political positions and party affilation, work for a creation of needed and wise laws. A great responsibility was bested upon us: not only to create a laws, but to prove by our work to citizens that creation of the Assembly was a right choice.

Thank you


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 28, 2009, 04:39:40 pm
We shall first elect a Deputy Presiding Officer. Representatives have twenty-four hours to nominate a candidate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on September 28, 2009, 07:47:04 pm
Sorry fellow Representatives, looks like I acted little to quickly this time ;)

Since Smid is running for the position I'll drop out and support him 

Nonsense! You were not at all too hasty. I think it would be poor form for democracy for you to drop out after playing such an active role in the establishment of the legislature. I would be happy to perform the duties of office if my fellow Representatives choose me, but I'm equally happy if we choose another candidate from our midst.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 12:57:26 am
Shouldn't we be passing enabling legislation before selecting a Speaker? 
-------
Here's what Representative Kalwejt's proposed President pro tempore amendment said (I've replaced "President pro tempore" with "Speaker" and cleaned up some of the language):

Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

1. The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.
2. The Speaker shall assume the role of presiding officer of the Northeast Assembly whenever the Lieutenant Governor publicly confirms he will be absent from the Northeast Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor otherwise publicly designates the Speaker to this role for a specified period.
3. The Speaker shall serve until the end of the Northeast Assembly term, unless the Speaker is removed or resigns from the office of the Speaker.
4. The Speaker may be removed from office by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly.
5. If the office of the Speaker is vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members as soon as possible.
---------
Question: Do we want the Speaker to be elected by a clear majority or is a plurality vote okay?  Or do we want some sort of proportional voting?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 29, 2009, 01:22:30 am
Absolute majority is better.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 01:29:24 am
Absolute majority is better.

I think so too.  If we all think so, the law should read:

Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

1. The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.
2. The Speaker shall assume the role of presiding officer of the Northeast Assembly whenever the Lieutenant Governor publicly confirms he will be absent from the Northeast Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor otherwise publicly designates the Speaker to this role for a specified period.
3. The Speaker shall serve until the end of the Northeast Assembly term, unless the Speaker is removed or resigns from the office of the Speaker.
4. The Speaker may be removed from office by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly.
5. If the office of the Speaker becomes vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly as soon as possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 29, 2009, 01:49:47 am
Well, this is good. ;)
I think we can immediately start voting, to rapidly have our speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 02:09:43 am
Shouldn't we be passing enabling legislation before selecting a Speaker? 
-------
Here's what Representative Kalwejt's proposed President pro tempore amendment said (I've replaced "President pro tempore" with "Speaker" and cleaned up some of the language):

Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

1. The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.
2. The Speaker shall assume the role of presiding officer of the Northeast Assembly whenever the Lieutenant Governor publicly confirms he will be absent from the Northeast Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor otherwise publicly designates the Speaker to this role for a specified period.
3. The Speaker shall serve until the end of the Northeast Assembly term, unless the Speaker is removed or resigns from the office of the Speaker.
4. The Speaker may be removed from office by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly.
5. If the office of the Speaker is vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members as soon as possible.
---------
Question: Do we want the Speaker to be elected by a clear majority or is a plurality vote okay?  Or do we want some sort of proportional voting?

Plurality.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 08:20:59 am
Plularity


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 29, 2009, 10:22:32 am
Plularity

??

Plurality is unfair.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 10:27:59 am

I know, but I also don't think we should put this issue on the edge


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 12:19:44 pm

Plus, someone elected with only a plurality could easily be removed by a majority at any time - unless we require removal by a supermajority like 2/3rds or 3/4ths.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 12:56:23 pm
That's make a sense. So after a deliberation I support simple majority requirement (and simple majority requirement to remove)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 29, 2009, 12:59:14 pm
Quote
Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

1. The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.
2. The Speaker shall assume the role of presiding officer of the Northeast Assembly whenever the Lieutenant Governor publicly confirms he will be absent from the Northeast Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor otherwise publicly designates the Speaker to this role for a specified period.
3. The Speaker shall serve until the end of the Northeast Assembly term, unless the Speaker is removed or resigns from the office of the Speaker.
4. The Speaker may be removed from office by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly.
5. If the office of the Speaker becomes vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly as soon as possible.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 01:10:46 pm
AYE

(just remember I have my part in this bill too ;))


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 29, 2009, 01:15:30 pm
(just remember I have my part in this bill too ;))

Sorry, I just wanted it to go faster. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 01:21:34 pm
(just remember I have my part in this bill too ;))

Sorry, I just wanted it to go faster. ;)

And good, because we need to fully organize ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 29, 2009, 01:27:28 pm
(just remember I have my part in this bill too ;))

Sorry, I just wanted it to go faster. ;)

And good, because we need to fully organize ;)

This proceeding is perfectly legal. We don't need voting booths and stuff.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 01:45:23 pm
(just remember I have my part in this bill too ;))

Sorry, I just wanted it to go faster. ;)

And good, because we need to fully organize ;)

This proceeding is perfectly legal. We don't need voting booths and stuff.

I know, I haven't mind this, just good we're moving on with establishing deputy presiding officer position


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 02:06:02 pm
Northeast Assembly Speaker Act: Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 29, 2009, 02:24:40 pm
3/5 votes : this will officially pas as soon as Mr President will certify results.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 02:30:40 pm
3/5 votes : this will officially pas as soon as Mr President will certify results.

I'm so glad we are making first steps :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 02:49:39 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 29, 2009, 03:39:30 pm
With four voting in favor, zero against, and one not voting, the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act has officially passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 03:42:29 pm
Nominate Smid for Speaker


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 03:49:56 pm
Mr. President, I'd like to ask a question of formal nature.

Is this a bill, which would require gubernatorial signature? If so, we obviously cannot chose Speaker right now.

Or is this just a part of internat Assembly rule?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 03:51:24 pm
Mr. President, I'd like to ask a question of formal nature.

Is this a bill, which would require gubernatorial signature? If so, we obviously cannot chose Speaker right now.

Or is this just a part of internat Assembly rule?

WE make our own rules in this chamber


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 04:00:06 pm
Mr. President, I'd like to ask a question of formal nature.

Is this a bill, which would require gubernatorial signature? If so, we obviously cannot chose Speaker right now.

Or is this just a part of internat Assembly rule?

WE make our own rules in this chamber

All right, because "Act" word may be mireaded there


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 29, 2009, 04:02:45 pm
Mr. President, I'd like to ask a question of formal nature.

Is this a bill, which would require gubernatorial signature? If so, we obviously cannot chose Speaker right now.

Or is this just a part of internat Assembly rule?

 Which do not require the Governor's signature.
WE make our own rules in this chamber

I believe it to simply be rules of procedure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 04:22:50 pm
I've skimmed the Senate's complex rules (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Official_Senate_Procedural_Resolution) regarding debate and voting procedures - the often-amended OSPR.   Yikes! 

I don't think a regional Assembly needs a Standing Order that is quite that complex.  In fact, I can't find any equivalent resolution passed by the Mideast Assembly.  Nevertheless, I think we should enact some sort of Standing Order on Assembly Procedure (SOAP), though - at a minimum, limiting the number of bills that can be on the floor at one time (1? 2? 3?), the order in which they shall be taken up (chronologically in the order proposed?  Lt. Governor's discretion?), and specifying a period for debate (72 hours?) and a voting period (24 hours?).   Otherwise, there may be chaos going forward.

Edit:  Whoops!  I meant to add this as a new response, not edit this post.  The original post basically said I'd look into what the Senate's procedural rules say on this matter.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 04:25:22 pm
Votes open for a minimum of 24 hours.
Ability to change vote only until the final tally.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 04:29:57 pm
Votes open for a minimum of 24 hours.
Ability to change vote only until the final tally.


Except for emergency action, perhaps?  The Senate seems to have a rule allowing shorter votes for emergency bills.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 04:31:03 pm
Votes open for a minimum of 24 hours.
Ability to change vote only until the final tally.


Except for emergency action, perhaps?  The Senate seems to have a rule allowing shorter votes for emergency bills.

We can do that if it is felt to be necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 29, 2009, 04:48:06 pm
The Question before us is: "Shall Smid be made Speaker of this Assembly?"
Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 04:48:26 pm
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 05:05:07 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on September 29, 2009, 07:26:56 pm
I think it best to refer to the rules by which the Speaker is chosen to be part of the Standing Orders. Examples of real standing orders can be seen here (plus numerous other locations). In each case, the election of Speaker is detailed in the Standing Orders (the Australian House of Reps one goes into the wording of motions and so on, very interesting and very precise):

-Australian House of Reps: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/standos/index.htm
-Australian Senate: (not standing orders, but some of the rules of debate - has links to standing orders) http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/guides/briefno04.htm
-Victorian Leg. Assembly: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing_orders/2004-03/
-Queensland Leg Assembly: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/procedures.asp - click for Standing Orders. Other interesting documents also located there.
-British House of Commons: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmstords/2/2.pdf
-Canadian House of Commons: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/standingorders/toc-e.htm

As you can see from the examples, the rules are only binding on the House that passed them - so if at some time in the future, the Northeast had an Upper House/Regional Senate (not that I can see that happening), the rules/standing orders would not be binding on them.

Regarding the length of time open for debate and votes, and particularly the matter of urgency motions, I think it's important to keep the vote open for 24 hours. This is particularly the case for foreign members, as we are in different time zones.

In this sense, it's similar to Queensland Parliament's Standing Order 128 (found on page 39), which notes in point 8 that a Bill must be tabled for at least 13 calendar days after the introductory speech.

Note, however, that Standing Order 159 (page 44) allows for a majority of Members to vote that a Bill be considered urgent and therefore reduce the time requirments under SO128. This could be something we consider.

Although it has already passed, I'd like express my support for the Standing Orders relating to the election of Speaker.

I also accept the nomination for Speaker of our Assembly, and abstain from voting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 07:34:29 pm
I think that after election of the Speaker, we should consider including the office to the order of succession and order of precedence alike.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 07:40:02 pm
I think that after election of the Speaker, we should consider including the office to the order of succession and order of precedence alike.

Unnecessary. We simply elect a new one if Smid resigns


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 29, 2009, 07:42:00 pm
I think that after election of the Speaker, we should consider including the office to the order of succession and order of precedence alike.

Unnecessary. We simply elect a new one if Smid resigns.

I think he is referring to Gubernatorial succession.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 07:42:34 pm
I think that after election of the Speaker, we should consider including the office to the order of succession and order of precedence alike.

Unnecessary. We simply elect a new one if Smid resigns.

I think he is referring to Gubernatorial succession.

Exactly. And don;t forget order of precedence


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 07:45:55 pm
Governor-Lt. Governor-CJO

We don't need to change it


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 29, 2009, 07:50:51 pm
Governor-Lt. Governor-CJO

We don't need to change it

Why not, for example

Governor - Lt. Governor - CJO - Speaker?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 29, 2009, 07:53:29 pm
I know we are still voting on the confirmation of Smid, but I will not be here for most of tonight and tomorrow. So, I think it is necessary for someone to "watch after" the Assembly.

Therefore, I hereby designate Smid as Acting Speaker of the Assembly, effective at Ten o' clock tonight and in force until I expressly state I am able to preside over the Assembly.

Also, Smid, if you are elected Speaker, and are still Acting Speaker, go ahead and consider yourself the "real" Speaker.

I hope to not cause any controversy over this, but I just want the Assembly to run smoothly. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on September 29, 2009, 10:28:16 pm
BTW, line of sucsession goes Governor, Lt. Governor, CJO. As Rep. Hamilton stated, there is no need to change it. In my entire time here in the Northeast, the only time that its gone far down to CJO was after Fezzy resigned as Governor, and Rin resigned as Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 12:10:00 am
Aye on Smid for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 30, 2009, 12:49:23 am
The Question before us is: "Shall Smid be made Speaker of this Assembly?"
Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Aye

Btw, has the speaker the right to certify results in the place of Lt Gov ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 30, 2009, 12:50:28 am
Smid is officially Speaker of the Northeast Assembly!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 01:11:48 am
I've skimmed the Senate's complex rules (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Official_Senate_Procedural_Resolution) regarding debate and voting procedures - the often-amended OSPR.   Yikes! 

I don't think a regional Assembly needs a Standing Order that is quite that complex.  In fact, I can't find any equivalent resolution passed by the Mideast Assembly.  Nevertheless, I think we should enact some sort of Standing Order on Assembly Procedure (SOAP), though - at a minimum, limiting the number of bills that can be on the floor at one time (1? 2? 3?), the order in which they shall be taken up (chronologically in the order proposed?  Lt. Governor's discretion?), and specifying a period for debate (72 hours?) and a voting period (24 hours?).   Otherwise, there may be chaos going forward.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 30, 2009, 01:14:31 am
I've skimmed the Senate's complex rules (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Official_Senate_Procedural_Resolution) regarding debate and voting procedures - the often-amended OSPR.   Yikes! 

I don't think a regional Assembly needs a Standing Order that is quite that complex.  In fact, I can't find any equivalent resolution passed by the Mideast Assembly.  Nevertheless, I think we should enact some sort of Standing Order on Assembly Procedure (SOAP), though - at a minimum, limiting the number of bills that can be on the floor at one time (1? 2? 3?), the order in which they shall be taken up (chronologically in the order proposed?  Lt. Governor's discretion?), and specifying a period for debate (72 hours?) and a voting period (24 hours?).   Otherwise, there may be chaos going forward.

I can accept all of these standards.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on September 30, 2009, 01:35:26 am
Smid is officially Speaker of the Northeast Assembly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp_kwUt7awo


I've skimmed the Senate's complex rules (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Official_Senate_Procedural_Resolution) regarding debate and voting procedures - the often-amended OSPR.   Yikes! 

I don't think a regional Assembly needs a Standing Order that is quite that complex.  In fact, I can't find any equivalent resolution passed by the Mideast Assembly.  Nevertheless, I think we should enact some sort of Standing Order on Assembly Procedure (SOAP), though - at a minimum, limiting the number of bills that can be on the floor at one time (1? 2? 3?), the order in which they shall be taken up (chronologically in the order proposed?  Lt. Governor's discretion?), and specifying a period for debate (72 hours?) and a voting period (24 hours?).   Otherwise, there may be chaos going forward.

I agree that we need a simple list of Standing Orders (SOAP). I would suggest we debate a single Bill at a time and for the order to be decided chronologically in the order proposed - perhaps having a separate thread for Bills drafted (and then debated in the order they appear in that thread). A Bill could perhaps be given urgency to be debated out of order (and with a shortened time period) by a simple majority vote on a motion to do so, something along the lines of:

Mover of the Bill: I move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended that would prevent the [Name of Bill] Bill receiving the consideration of the House.

Speaker/Lt Gov: All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No".

(voting accordingly. Vote ceases once a majority is attained or a majority have voted against, or 24 hours have elapsed).

Speaker/Lt Gov: I think the Ayes have it.

Mover of the Bill: I move that the [Name of Bill] Bill be read a second time (debate thus commences).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 30, 2009, 07:44:03 am
That seems good. Is someone going to write it ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 10:27:05 am
That seems good. Is someone going to write it ?

I'll draft something when I get a chance, hopefully later today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 30, 2009, 11:32:38 am
That seems good. Is someone going to write it ?

I'll draft something when I get a chance, hopefully later today.

Great. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 30, 2009, 01:25:42 pm
This is moving along nicely. I'll hopefully get the Northeast regional report up this week. :) Good job everyone.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 02:08:01 pm
Here's my first draft:

Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), the Lt. Governor shall introduce legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not introduce more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative before introducing legislation from other Representatives that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall move such piece of proposed legislation to the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor introduces it to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e)  The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on September 30, 2009, 02:16:37 pm
Here's my first draft:

Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), the Lt. Governor shall introduce legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not introduce more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative before introducing legislation from other Representatives that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall move such piece of proposed legislation to the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor introduces it to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e)  The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.

I will support these rules


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 30, 2009, 02:22:14 pm
No one answered or addressed my question the first time, so allow me to repeat it (with some rephrasing): Are citizens still able to propose legislation with signatories, or are we now just a mini-fed?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 02:30:36 pm
No one answered or addressed my question the first time, so allow me to repeat it (with some rephrasing): Are citizens still able to propose legislation with signatories, or are we now just a mini-fed?

That's one of the two things I'm checking into - what the final amendment said on that and veto overrides.  Both would need to be built into the queue somehow.  I suspect we'd take up overrides immediately after a bill is vetoed, regardless of whether anything else is on the floor and we'd put citizen legislation to the top of the queue.
----------
Edit: 2 citizens may propose legislation for the Assembly to take up, as may the Governor.  Both have to be added to the queue somehow.  Proposal: Governor waits like everyone else, citizens get bills put to the top of the queue after current business is voted upon.  We'd have to have separate procedures for amendments, since nothing would be friendly unless we let the Governor and/or those citizens participate when their legislation is on the floor.

On veto overrides, it appears that if we vote for a piece of legislation a second time, the Governor's veto is ineffective (See Article IV(xi)).   That's not so great for the governor's powers, but I propose we take up veto overrides immediately simultaneously with any other legislation on the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 30, 2009, 02:56:15 pm
Here's my first draft:

Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), the Lt. Governor shall introduce legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not introduce more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative before introducing legislation from other Representatives that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall move such piece of proposed legislation to the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor introduces it to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e)  The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.

Why should the Lieutenant Governor be the only one to officially introduce pieces of legislation ? This should be done by any representative whenever he wants.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 02:57:24 pm
Second Draft (new language in red)

Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives, the Governor and any concerned Northeast citizen shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation or a Northeast citizen's signature for proposed citizen legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) , (d) and (e), the Lt. Governor shall introduce legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not introduce more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative, initial sponsoring citizen, or the Governor before introducing legislation from other Representatives or the Governor that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (e), only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall move such piece of proposed legislation to the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.
(d) Except as provided in subsection (a), the Lt. Governor shall place legislation successfully proposed by citizens on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any current legislation then on the Northeast Assembly floor is finally voted upon or tabled.
(e) The Lt. Governor shall place any legislation that is vetoed by the Governor on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after such veto.  Veto override votes may occur while other legislation is on the Northeast Assembly floor.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor introduces it to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e)  The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  A final vote on veto overrides shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation or veto override shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 03:01:43 pm
Why should the Lieutenant Governor be the only one to officially introduce pieces of legislation ? This should be done by any representative whenever he wants.

Under Section 15 of the Constitutional Amendment creating this Assembly (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102445.0), the Lt. Governor runs the Assembly floor.  Therefore, he should move legislation from the proposed legislation thread to the Assembly floor.   

That's all I meant by introduces, though it might not be the right term.  The person who initially sponsors a bill in the proposed legislation thread would have all say on amendments and the like, not the Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 30, 2009, 03:08:19 pm
I like the SOAP, cinyc.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on September 30, 2009, 03:11:03 pm
Why should the Lieutenant Governor be the only one to officially introduce pieces of legislation ? This should be done by any representative whenever he wants.

Under Section 15 of the Constitutional Amendment creating this Assembly (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102445.0), the Lt. Governor runs the Assembly floor.  Therefore, he should move legislation from the proposed legislation thread to the Assembly floor.   

That's all I meant by introduces, though it might not be the right term.  The person who initially sponsors a bill in the proposed legislation thread would have all say on amendments and the like, not the Lt. Governor.

Well, I think I know this Amendment, since I wrote most of it. ;)
What I meant is just that LG certifies the vote results, just as did the CJO previously. I understand you point, but you should replace the verb "introduce" by something different, to make clear that Lt Gov hasn't any "right of veto" on this (I obviously don't fear anything from Barnes :) but yu never know).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 03:15:12 pm
Why should the Lieutenant Governor be the only one to officially introduce pieces of legislation ? This should be done by any representative whenever he wants.

Under Section 15 of the Constitutional Amendment creating this Assembly (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102445.0), the Lt. Governor runs the Assembly floor.  Therefore, he should move legislation from the proposed legislation thread to the Assembly floor.   

That's all I meant by introduces, though it might not be the right term.  The person who initially sponsors a bill in the proposed legislation thread would have all say on amendments and the like, not the Lt. Governor.

Well, I think I know this Amendment, since I wrote most of it. ;)
What I meant is just that LG certifies the vote results, just as did the CJO previously. I understand you point, but you should replace the verb "introduce" by something different, to make clear that Lt Gov hasn't any "right of veto" on this (I obviously don't fear anything from Barnes :) but yu never know).

Is "move" better than "introduce" or is there some other verb you have in mind?  I can't think of another one.  Maybe "place"?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on September 30, 2009, 07:25:47 pm
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 10:57:24 pm
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

What happens if a sponsor is absent and doesn't move it ASAP?  Should we have a time limit before the Lt. Gov moves on to the next bill?  Or should we just let the Lt. Gov place it on the floor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 01, 2009, 12:06:36 am
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

What happens if a sponsor is absent and doesn't move it ASAP?  Should we have a time limit before the Lt. Gov moves on to the next bill?  Or should we just let the Lt. Gov place it on the floor?

How about whoever gets to it first so that we can proceed as quickly as possible?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 01, 2009, 12:48:43 am
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 01, 2009, 12:49:56 am
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)

No. We don't want to clutter the floor too much.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 01, 2009, 12:52:02 am
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)

No. We don't want to clutter the floor too much.

Any Rep has the right to introduce bills. This right should be fully guaranteed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 01, 2009, 12:54:35 am
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)

No. We don't want to clutter the floor too much.

Any Rep has the right to introduce bills. This right should be fully guaranteed.

No


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 01, 2009, 01:09:41 am
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)

I don't think we should have tons of legislation on the floor at the same time, which may happen if we let Representatives just propose legislation in both threads.  Having more than one bill open for discussion would clutter up the Assembly thread and make things confusing.    Unlike the Atlasian Senate, we have only one Assembly thread to conduct all floor business.   The nature of the Atlas Fantasy Elections sub-board doesn't lend itself to a regional legislature having more than one or two threads - things would get lost to the second or third page of the sub-board if Representatives don't comment on it for a day or so.

I'd prefer that the President of the Senate (i.e. the Lt. Governor unless designated to the Speaker) move items from the proposed legislation thread on the Assembly floor whenever a bill is passed or tabled.  This is similar to what the President Pro Tempore does in the Senate - which seems to work fine there.  We can make sure the Lt. Governor has no discretion over which items to place on the floor by using a proper phrasing like "place on the Northeast Assembly floor" or "place on the Northeast Assembly floor on behalf (and stating the name) of the sponsor", and specifying the order in which items must be placed on the floor (which Section 2 of my proposed bill already does).  Or perhaps by just adding a sentence stating that the Lt. Governor has no power to change the order in which items are placed on the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 01, 2009, 01:14:39 am
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 01, 2009, 01:16:10 am
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

There should be a regional government board for all the regional governments to post on.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 01, 2009, 01:22:00 am
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

The reason for a separate proposed legislation thread is so that everyone knows where to find all proposed NE legislation and can easily figure out what should be up next should the Lt. Governor/Speaker try to play games with the agenda.  Links are only as good as the person who maintains them, and proposing legislation in the NE Assembly floor thread would clutter this thread and could lead to confusion as to which bill is actually being debated at any given time.

We're not asking for much.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 01, 2009, 01:30:29 am
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

The reason for a separate proposed legislation thread is so that everyone knows where to find all proposed NE legislation and can easily figure out what should be up next should the Lt. Governor/Speaker try to play games with the agenda.  Links are only as good as the person who maintains them, and proposing legislation in the NE Assembly floor thread would clutter this thread and could lead to confusion as to which bill is actually being debated at any given time.

We're not asking for much.

Just making sure you realize that 3 ME assemblymen threads + ME Assembly + NE Assembly + NE Assembly Legislation + 6 NE assemblymen = 12 threads. The first page of this board can hold thirteen non-stickied threads.

Perhaps a regional government sub-board will soon be necessary. A thought for the mods to bring up to Dave perhaps. If one more region passes a legislature it will definitely be needed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: big bad fab on October 01, 2009, 03:20:01 am
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

The reason for a separate proposed legislation thread is so that everyone knows where to find all proposed NE legislation and can easily figure out what should be up next should the Lt. Governor/Speaker try to play games with the agenda.  Links are only as good as the person who maintains them, and proposing legislation in the NE Assembly floor thread would clutter this thread and could lead to confusion as to which bill is actually being debated at any given time.

We're not asking for much.

Just making sure you realize that 3 ME assemblymen threads + ME Assembly + NE Assembly + NE Assembly Legislation + 6 NE assemblymen = 12 threads. The first page of this board can hold thirteen non-stickied threads.

Perhaps a regional government sub-board will soon be necessary. A thought for the mods to bring up to Dave perhaps. If one more region passes a legislature it will definitely be needed.

I allow myself to post in this thread, just to concur with PS, as Mideast assemblyman.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 01, 2009, 06:06:37 am
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)

I don't think we should have tons of legislation on the floor at the same time, which may happen if we let Representatives just propose legislation in both threads.  Having more than one bill open for discussion would clutter up the Assembly thread and make things confusing.    Unlike the Atlasian Senate, we have only one Assembly thread to conduct all floor business.   The nature of the Atlas Fantasy Elections sub-board doesn't lend itself to a regional legislature having more than one or two threads - things would get lost to the second or third page of the sub-board if Representatives don't comment on it for a day or so.

I'd prefer that the President of the Senate (i.e. the Lt. Governor unless designated to the Speaker) move items from the proposed legislation thread on the Assembly floor whenever a bill is passed or tabled.  This is similar to what the President Pro Tempore does in the Senate - which seems to work fine there.  We can make sure the Lt. Governor has no discretion over which items to place on the floor by using a proper phrasing like "place on the Northeast Assembly floor" or "place on the Northeast Assembly floor on behalf (and stating the name) of the sponsor", and specifying the order in which items must be placed on the floor (which Section 2 of my proposed bill already does).  Or perhaps by just adding a sentence stating that the Lt. Governor has no power to change the order in which items are placed on the floor.

Seems good. :)


Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

The reason for a separate proposed legislation thread is so that everyone knows where to find all proposed NE legislation and can easily figure out what should be up next should the Lt. Governor/Speaker try to play games with the agenda.  Links are only as good as the person who maintains them, and proposing legislation in the NE Assembly floor thread would clutter this thread and could lead to confusion as to which bill is actually being debated at any given time.

We're not asking for much.

Just making sure you realize that 3 ME assemblymen threads + ME Assembly + NE Assembly + NE Assembly Legislation + 6 NE assemblymen = 12 threads. The first page of this board can hold thirteen non-stickied threads.

Well, 12 or 13 doesn't change so much.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on October 01, 2009, 07:37:02 am
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

The reason for a separate proposed legislation thread is so that everyone knows where to find all proposed NE legislation and can easily figure out what should be up next should the Lt. Governor/Speaker try to play games with the agenda.  Links are only as good as the person who maintains them, and proposing legislation in the NE Assembly floor thread would clutter this thread and could lead to confusion as to which bill is actually being debated at any given time.

We're not asking for much.

Just making sure you realize that 3 ME assemblymen threads + ME Assembly + NE Assembly + NE Assembly Legislation + 6 NE assemblymen = 12 threads. The first page of this board can hold thirteen non-stickied threads.

Perhaps a regional government sub-board will soon be necessary. A thought for the mods to bring up to Dave perhaps. If one more region passes a legislature it will definitely be needed.

I allow myself to post in this thread, just to concur with PS, as Mideast assemblyman.

What Fab said.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 01, 2009, 12:42:09 pm
Third Draft (new language from the first draft in red)

Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives, the Governor and any concerned Northeast citizen shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation or a Northeast citizen's signature for proposed citizen legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) , (d), (e) and (f), the Lt. Governor shall place legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor (on behalf and stating the name of the sponsor) in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not place more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative, initial sponsoring citizen, or the Governor before placing legislation from other Representatives or the Governor that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (e) and (f), only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall place such piece of proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.
(d) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(b) of this Standing Order to place more than one piece of legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor at any given time.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall place such additional pieces of proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately at the end of the voting period.
(e) Except as provided in subsection (a), the Lt. Governor shall place legislation successfully proposed by citizens on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any current legislation then on the Northeast Assembly floor is finally voted upon or tabled.
(f) The Lt. Governor shall place any legislation that is vetoed by the Governor on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after such veto.  Veto override votes may occur while other legislation is on the Northeast Assembly floor.
(g) Nothing in this Section 2 shall allow the Lt. Governor to do anything but place proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor on behalf of the sponsor of such legislation.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e)  The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  A final vote on veto overrides shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation or veto override shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 01, 2009, 12:47:16 pm
I think my Third Draft of the SOAP is complete enough to be put to a vote should the Speaker deem it possible at this time.

The two main changes from the second draft were to change "introduce" to "place" and add a section allowing Representatives to make a motion to place more than one piece of proposed legislation on the Senate floor at any given time.  I've also added a subsection making it clear that the only power the Lt. Governor has is to place items on the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 01, 2009, 12:51:12 pm
I think my Third Draft of the SOAP is complete enough to be put to a vote should the Speaker deem it possible at this time.

The two main changes from the second draft were to change "introduce" to "place" and add a section allowing Representatives to make a motion to place more than one piece of proposed legislation on the Senate floor at any given time.  I've also added a subsection making it clear that the only power the Lt. Governor has is to place items on the floor.

Seems great. I would like to congratulate you for your work. :)


Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 01, 2009, 01:19:59 pm
Can we vote?

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 01, 2009, 02:01:41 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 01, 2009, 02:09:20 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 01, 2009, 02:12:17 pm
We got it. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 02, 2009, 12:53:13 am
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 12:55:02 am
When do my colleagues wish to begin debating "real" legislation?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 01:49:35 am
When do my colleagues wish to begin debating "real" legislation?

In absence of a legislation introduction thread, I'll post this here.

Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill

Section A: Exemptions


1.   This act only applies to public high schools (grades 9/10-12)
2.   This act does not apply to schools with less than 400 enrolled students.
3.   This requirements included in this act take effect starting with the class of 2015.

Section B: Safe Sex Education Requirements


1.   Completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.
2.   The course must teach about methods of contraception, including condoms and birth-control pills, as well as proper usage of said methods.
3.   The course must teach that abstinence is the safest way to avoid venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
4.   The course must teach sexual anatomy, including the functions of male and female reproductive organs.
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer and prostate cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Section C: Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention Education Requirements


1.   The course must teach how HIV/AIDS is contracted, the effects of HIV/AIDS, and how to best avoid HIV/AIDS.
2.   The course must also cover herpes, chlamydia, syphilis, hepatitis, and human papilloma virus (HPV).
3.   The course must provide a list of local clinics that provide testing for STDs.

Section D: Pregnancy Education Requirements


1.   The course must teach the developmental process of the pregnancy, including zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.
2.   The course must teach that adoption and abortion are both options for unwanted pregnancies.
3.   The course must provide a list of pregnancy help clinics that provide counseling and information regarding how to handle being pregnant.
4.   All women under the age of 18 seeking the termination of a pregnancy are required to attend a 90 minute counseling session that covers the actual procedure, the risk involved, how to handle an abortion and maintain mental and physical health, and alternative options to abortion such as adoption.

Section E: Privacy Requirements


1.   The course must respect the students’ right to privacy.
2.   Students must NOT be pressured into answering questions they are uncomfortable with.
3.   Teachers are expected and required not to reveal any private details from private conversations related to the course material.

Section F: Clarification


1.     This act replaces all existing overlapping policy in the Northeast region as soon as it takes effect.

Sponsors:
Rep. Hamilton and Rep. Kalwejt


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 02, 2009, 05:29:09 am
The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." I think the Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative Hamilton, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 05:40:08 am
I think the bill is a good mandate for our youth. Teenagers often make poor decisions, especially regarding sex, and I think this mandate will demonstrate the seriousness of the issue. We must work to educate, not pressure, but teach with good faith, our youth about the risks that come along with sex. This bill aims to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and encourage frequent testing, reduce abortions and teen pregnancies, encourage abstinence without forcing it, and overall teaching our youth how to keep their bodies healthy and safe. It also seeks to offer information about where teenagers can go for help- local clinics, etc.

There may be some "controversial" provisions but there is nothing in this bill that is extreme or anti-religious. This is a bipartisan development that reaches across the aisle to address concerns shared by Northeasterners of all ideologies- teen pregnancy, STD prevention, breast/prostate cancer, contraception, and the recently explosive issue-- abortion. But these issues are considered in manner that is essentially nonideological and seeks to do nothing more than educate and protect Northeastern citizens and minimize risk for our children.

I urge my colleagues to consider and eventually support this bill. I now will yield to cosponsor Rep. Kalwejt. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 02, 2009, 06:15:42 am
Mr. Speaker, fellow Representatives

The history teach us that ignoring this issue and pretending, that if we would not talk about teenage population sex life, nothing would happen, is a great mistake. Unwanted pregnancies in very young age, when the people are simply not ready for such responsibility like parenity, transmition of sexual dieases, etc. etc. We cannot force teenagers to not have a sexual relationships and in fact this is their rights. But we need to do whatever we can to help them understand the seriousness of this matter. And we can only help them by providing this needed knowledge how to avoid such "troubles".

I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts that this is not political matter and can be dealed with without partisianship. This is about our youth and we were sworn-in to serve all of our citizens. Long-time lack of such legislation was wrong thing, but now we have a chance to repair this.

Thank you. I yeild the florr to whatever Representative designated to speak now ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 02, 2009, 07:41:43 am
What is the rationale behind exempting schools with less than 400 students?

Further, I know that the Northeast has a lot of pro-life relics on the books from its halycon days. Since this bill deals with abortions and those under the age of 18, I ask: Do we have a parental notification law in place?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ebowed on October 02, 2009, 09:06:28 am
4.   All women under the age of 18 seeking the termination of a pregnancy are required to attend a 90 minute counseling session that covers the actual procedure, the risk involved, how to handle an abortion and maintain mental and physical health, and alternative options to abortion such as adoption.

1.   The course must respect the students’ right to privacy.

One of these provisions will have to be removed to resolve the inherent contradiction.  I would recommend the former.

(Unless the former provision is not taking place at the school, in which case I have to wonder exactly why mandatory counseling is included in a bill about public school sex education.  Also, will pupils under 18 who opt for adoption be required to undergo mandatory counseling where they will be notified of the potential physical and mental risks involved in continuing the pregnancy?)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 02, 2009, 09:16:09 am
I tend to agree with my former Vice President.  Make this bill be about sex ed in schools, and not about what pregnant teens have to do.

I'd also like to amend the bill to ensure that school address homosexuality in a reality-based, non-moralistic way.  In my past sex-ed experience, homosexuality wasn't addressed at all, aside from an admission that it exists and a warning not to participate in anal sex.  (It was an uncomfortable mini-discussion, as you might imagine.)

(I'll figure out said amendment in the near future.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 02, 2009, 11:14:47 am
When do my colleagues wish to begin debating "real" legislation?

In absence of a legislation introduction thread, I'll post this here.

Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill

Section A: Exemptions


1.   This act only applies to public high schools (grades 9/10-12)
2.   This act does not apply to schools with less than 400 enrolled students.
3.   This requirements included in this act take effect starting with the class of 2015.

Section B: Safe Sex Education Requirements


1.   Completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.
2.   The course must teach about methods of contraception, including condoms and birth-control pills, as well as proper usage of said methods.
3.   The course must teach that abstinence is the safest way to avoid venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
4.   The course must teach sexual anatomy, including the functions of male and female reproductive organs.
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer and prostate cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Section C: Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention Education Requirements


1.   The course must teach how HIV/AIDS is contracted, the effects of HIV/AIDS, and how to best avoid HIV/AIDS.
2.   The course must also cover herpes, chlamydia, syphilis, hepatitis, and human papilloma virus (HPV).
3.   The course must provide a list of local clinics that provide testing for STDs.

Section D: Pregnancy Education Requirements


1.   The course must teach the developmental process of the pregnancy, including zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.
2.   The course must teach that adoption and abortion are both options for unwanted pregnancies.
3.   The course must provide a list of pregnancy help clinics that provide counseling and information regarding how to handle being pregnant.
4.   All women under the age of 18 seeking the termination of a pregnancy are required to attend a 90 minute counseling session that covers the actual procedure, the risk involved, how to handle an abortion and maintain mental and physical health, and alternative options to abortion such as adoption.

Section E: Privacy Requirements


1.   The course must respect the students’ right to privacy.
2.   Students must NOT be pressured into answering questions they are uncomfortable with.
3.   Teachers are expected and required not to reveal any private details from private conversations related to the course material.

Section F: Clarification


1.     This act replaces all existing overlapping policy in the Northeast region as soon as it takes effect.

Sponsors:
Rep. Hamilton and Rep. Kalwejt

This is great. I approve it at 100%. :)


Btw, we need Mr resident's notification to make the SOAP officially pass. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 12:03:20 pm
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

As an aside, Rep. Smid is Mr. President right now.  He could open up the proposed legislation thread if he wishes, since the Lt. Governor has temporarily devolved his power to him.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 02, 2009, 12:05:31 pm
First: Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

There's no need to limit this to schools with 401+ students.  If anything, it's the rural populations that need access to this information even more.

Second: Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.


Certainly, districts will need to create a curriculum and text book publishers will need time to create materials to conform to the requirements of this act.  Once in place, there's no need to exclude people in the class of 2014, 13, and 12.

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.



Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.


Testicular cancer is a far greater risk to this age population, and can be detected much easier via self-examination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 02, 2009, 12:10:27 pm
Oh, and motion to strike Section D.4.  I'd gladly debate its merit as a separate bill, but it seems ill-placed in this one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 02, 2009, 02:30:51 pm
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.


Quote
As an aside, Rep. Smid is Mr. President right now.  He could open up the proposed legislation thread if he wishes, since the Lt. Governor has temporarily devolved his power to him.

Well, he didn't certify the results anyways.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 02, 2009, 03:00:12 pm
With five ayes, zero nays, and one no vote, I hereby certify that the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure has passed.

Sorry about begin gone, but I will also be gone most of Saturday (taking a trip to Warm Springs), but after that I should be around. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 03:07:13 pm
With five ayes, zero nays, and one no vote, I hereby certify that the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure has passed.

Sorry about begin gone, but I will also be gone most of Saturday (taking a trip to Warm Springs), but after that I should be around. :)

Can you please open the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation thread? 

Thanks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 02, 2009, 03:12:51 pm
With five ayes, zero nays, and one no vote, I hereby certify that the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure has passed.

Sorry about begin gone, but I will also be gone most of Saturday (taking a trip to Warm Springs), but after that I should be around. :)

Can you please open the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation thread? 

Thanks.

Done.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 02, 2009, 03:19:16 pm
First: Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

There's no need to limit this to schools with 401+ students.  If anything, it's the rural populations that need access to this information even more.

Second: Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.


Certainly, districts will need to create a curriculum and text book publishers will need time to create materials to conform to the requirements of this act.  Once in place, there's no need to exclude people in the class of 2014, 13, and 12.

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.



Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.


Testicular cancer is a far greater risk to this age population, and can be detected much easier via self-examination.

Hmm, when you try to be reasonable you actually are pretty good at this. My respect for you grew immeasurably from that one post.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 03:32:39 pm
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.

Agreed. We exempted private schools but there is no reason people with strong religious convictions should be objecting to this. I mean, they obviously created the kid in the first place so they're having sex. Their kids also need to know how to approach sex safely and intelligently.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 03:34:29 pm
First: Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

There's no need to limit this to schools with 401+ students.  If anything, it's the rural populations that need access to this information even more.

Second: Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.


Certainly, districts will need to create a curriculum and text book publishers will need time to create materials to conform to the requirements of this act.  Once in place, there's no need to exclude people in the class of 2014, 13, and 12.

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.



Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.


Testicular cancer is a far greater risk to this age population, and can be detected much easier via self-examination.

Hmm, when you try to be reasonable you actually are pretty good at this. My respect for you grew immeasurably from that one post.

All other accepted as friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 04:00:54 pm
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.

Agreed. We exempted private schools but there is no reason people with strong religious convictions should be objecting to this. I mean, they obviously created the kid in the first place so they're having sex. Their kids also need to know how to approach sex safely and intelligently.

Christian teaching on birth control and sex outside of marriage differs from what you'd propose students be required to be lectured about in school.  Parents should have the ultimate authority on their childrens' moral education, not the state.  Therefore, I simply can't support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 04:03:15 pm
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.

Agreed. We exempted private schools but there is no reason people with strong religious convictions should be objecting to this. I mean, they obviously created the kid in the first place so they're having sex. Their kids also need to know how to approach sex safely and intelligently.

Christian teaching on birth control and sex outside of marriage differs from what you'd propose students be required to be lectured about in school.  Parents should have the ultimate authority on their childrens' moral education, not the state.  Therefore, I simply can't support this bill.

This bill doesn't impose morals on students. It merely teaches techniques of safety and protection of health and life changing consequences. Christians surely don't more teen pregnancies and abortions than would happen with this bill in effect, do they?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 02, 2009, 04:24:46 pm
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.

Agreed. We exempted private schools but there is no reason people with strong religious convictions should be objecting to this. I mean, they obviously created the kid in the first place so they're having sex. Their kids also need to know how to approach sex safely and intelligently.

Which approachment is not limited to their teenage period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 04:48:06 pm
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 05:11:53 pm
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 05:17:18 pm
I'd like to point out that the Kern High School District requires sexual education. The KHSD is run by theocrats-- literally, people who spend millions to put "In God We Trust" in every classroom and seeks to implement school prayer, and containing a board member who punched out a Prop 8 opponent (a homosexual 20 something).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 05:18:08 pm
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.
Under the SOAP (which this bill may or may not be subject to), we vote on all unfriendly amendments at the end of the 72-hour debate period.

Am I correct that this and the homosexuality amendment are the two unfriendly ones and everything else proposed so far was accepted?

On the merits my amendment - I don't think the law is constitutional without it.  I believe it violates the Atlasian and Northeast Constitution's prohibitions on enacting laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion in its current form.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 05:19:21 pm
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.
Under the SOAP (which this bill may or may not be subject to), we vote on all unfriendly amendments at the end of the 72-hour debate period.

Am I correct that this and the homosexuality amendment are the two unfriendly ones and everything else proposed so far was accepted?

On the merits my amendment - I don't think the law is constitutional without it.  I believe it violates the Atlasian and Northeast Constitution's prohibitions on enacting laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion in its current form.

This bill doesn't have anything to do with religion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 05:27:17 pm
I'd like to point out that the Kern High School District requires sexual education. The KHSD is run by theocrats-- literally, people who spend millions to put "In God We Trust" in every classroom and seeks to implement school prayer, and containing a board member who punched out a Prop 8 opponent (a homosexual 20 something).

Really?  Here's what the Kern County HS District's own website (http://www.kernhigh.org/hivweb/index.htm) says about the "required" HIV/AIDS Prevention Course:

Quote from: KHSD
Parents are notified of our instruction with a bilingual letter mailed to each student’s home, two to three weeks prior to instruction. The informative letter outlines the curriculum content, time of instruction, and the date and time of a special parent night. Parent nights are held at four different school sites (four separate nights) to facilitate easy access for interested parents and guardians. The 90-minute presentation features all four HIV instructors and the program coordinator explaining, lesson by lesson, what their sons and/or daughters will be offered. The parent letter also allows the guardian to opt their child out of our instruction by filling out a short form and delivering it back to the school site.


This bill doesn't have anything to do with religion.
It forces children to attend a sex education class despite their parents' legitimate religious objections to what is being taught about things like contraception.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 05:31:11 pm
I attended a KHSD school. The HIV/AIDS is a 3 day class. The sexual health class is a semester long, which most students take as a freshman or in summer school. I personally did not attend the HIV/AIDS seminar but HIV/AIDS is covered in the sexual health class.

There should be no religious objections to promoting safer sexual practices as an alternative to risky sexual practices. There should be no religious objections to presenting alternatives to abortion such as adoption. There should be no religious objections to teaching how to look for cancers such as breast cancer.

EDIT: I didn't even have my parents sign the form to opt out of the 3 day seminar, I just didn't do it. It isn't "required" or part of a grade or anything. Every single student was required to take the semester course to graduate though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 02, 2009, 05:38:10 pm
I attended a KHSD school.

Kind of off-topic, but holy ѕhit, the Wikipedia article for that is one of the worst things I've ever read.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 02, 2009, 05:58:28 pm
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 06:01:05 pm
I attended a KHSD school. The HIV/AIDS is a 3 day class. The sexual health class is a semester long, which most students take as a freshman or in summer school. I personally did not attend the HIV/AIDS seminar but HIV/AIDS is covered in the sexual health class.

There should be no religious objections to promoting safer sexual practices as an alternative to risky sexual practices. There should be no religious objections to presenting alternatives to abortion such as adoption. There should be no religious objections to teaching how to look for cancers such as breast cancer.

EDIT: I didn't even have my parents sign the form to opt out of the 3 day seminar, I just didn't do it. It isn't "required" or part of a grade or anything. Every single student was required to take the semester course to graduate though.

Again, even in ultra-liberal California, the law (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/faq.asp) gives parents the right to opt their children out of high school sexual health education classes:

Quote from: California Department of Education
EC sections 51937 and 51938 explain that parents or guardians must be notified (passive consent) by the school at the beginning of the school year about planned comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention education, be given an opportunity to review materials, and be given the opportunity to request in writing that their child not participate in the instruction.

My amendment requests nothing less.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 06:02:31 pm
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Yes. The whole point of the bill is that it includes provisions that can satisfy everybody in someway. The idea of religious exemption will ultimately kill the bill, as there will no longer be the support needed to pass this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 02, 2009, 11:48:37 pm
I rise to speak in favour of the Bill, and look forward to debating the foreshadowed amendments.

A comprehensive sexual education programme in high schools will no doubt reduce the prevalance of abortion in the Northeast. I believe that this is a worthwhile goal and that this Bill will establish such an education programme.

I believe that nothing in this Bill imposes a constraint on the religious practices of parents, nor students, however I recognise the right of parents to make that decision for themselves and if necessary, opt-out of classes taught at their child's school.

The teaching of contraceptives and safe sex practices will not merely reduce the teen pregnancy rate in the Northeast, but that when the current students are married or in a long-term committed relationship, they will have a thorough understanding of the means of preventing an unplanned pregnancy if they so choose. As young adult couples are represented in abortion statistics, in years ahead, this Bill will help to reduce not just teen abortion figures, but also the number of abortions sought by young adult couples.

Despite my support for the teaching of contraceptive and safe sex methods, I am particularly pleased that abstinence will still be encouraged of the students and that such encouragement will not be taught from a moral or religious perspective - as this is certainly a matter for parental instruction - but will rather be taught from a practical perspective as a certain means of preventing both pregnancy and STDs.

I commend this Bill to the House.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 03, 2009, 01:55:52 am
I attended a KHSD school. The HIV/AIDS is a 3 day class. The sexual health class is a semester long, which most students take as a freshman or in summer school. I personally did not attend the HIV/AIDS seminar but HIV/AIDS is covered in the sexual health class.

There should be no religious objections to promoting safer sexual practices as an alternative to risky sexual practices. There should be no religious objections to presenting alternatives to abortion such as adoption. There should be no religious objections to teaching how to look for cancers such as breast cancer.

EDIT: I didn't even have my parents sign the form to opt out of the 3 day seminar, I just didn't do it. It isn't "required" or part of a grade or anything. Every single student was required to take the semester course to graduate though.

Again, even in ultra-liberal California, the law (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/faq.asp) gives parents the right to opt their children out of high school sexual health education classes:

Quote from: California Department of Education
EC sections 51937 and 51938 explain that parents or guardians must be notified (passive consent) by the school at the beginning of the school year about planned comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention education, be given an opportunity to review materials, and be given the opportunity to request in writing that their child not participate in the instruction.

My amendment requests nothing less.

CA is not ultra-liberal. Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York are "ultra-liberal". :P

That particular example, again, applies only to the specific 3-day or week-long seminars focusing mostly on HIV/AIDS. This bill is requiring this as a class to graduate from high school. CA kids still have to take the regular class.

This bill can be considered "public safety." Anything we can do to encourage frequent testing and safe sex practices, as well as anything that may lower the STD rate, protect not only individuals, but the community and region as a whole. Unless a couple is each others' only partner EVER, they are getting mixed in with everyone else's potential diseases. Obviously we can't legislate STDs and abortions and pregnancies and breast cancer out of existence, but we sure can try as hard as we can at the regional level to minimize their reach.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 03, 2009, 05:02:23 am
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Precisely. I will never support this because it makes no sense.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 03, 2009, 05:03:56 am
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Precisely. I will never support this because it makes no sense.

We can give it a fair vote but I doubt it passes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 03, 2009, 06:17:01 am
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Precisely. I will never support this because it makes no sense.

We can give it a fair vote but I doubt it passes.

It won't.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 03, 2009, 06:20:25 am
Can we end debate on this amendment? :P

Or better yet, can it get tabled? :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 03, 2009, 06:30:21 am
Can we end debate on this amendment? :P

Well, it still ended in fact.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 03, 2009, 01:16:59 pm
CA is not ultra-liberal. Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York are "ultra-liberal". :P

That particular example, again, applies only to the specific 3-day or week-long seminars focusing mostly on HIV/AIDS. This bill is requiring this as a class to graduate from high school. CA kids still have to take the regular class.

This bill can be considered "public safety." Anything we can do to encourage frequent testing and safe sex practices, as well as anything that may lower the STD rate, protect not only individuals, but the community and region as a whole. Unless a couple is each others' only partner EVER, they are getting mixed in with everyone else's potential diseases. Obviously we can't legislate STDs and abortions and pregnancies and breast cancer out of existence, but we sure can try as hard as we can at the regional level to minimize their reach.

You're wrong about CA's law.  It gives a parental opt-out for all sex ed classes, not just HIV education.

And funny you should mention Vermont - their law has a parental opt-out (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=16&Chapter=001&Section=00134):
Quote from: VT Title 16, Chap 1, Sec 134
Any pupil whose parent shall present to the school principal a signed statement that the teaching of disease, its symptoms, development and treatment, conflicts with the parents' religious convictions shall be exempt from such instruction, and no child so exempt shall be penalized by reason of that exemption.

As do the laws of Maine (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/22/title22ch406.pdf):
Quote from: ME Title 22, Sec 1911
To the extent that comprehensive family life education takes place in a school, a parent may choose to not have that parent's child participate in a comprehensive family life education program.

and Connecticut (http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtsearch_pub_statutes.asp?cmd=getdoc&DocId=79399&Index=I%3a%5czindex%5csurs&HitCount=3&hits=16e+41c+592+&hc=5572&req=10&Item=39):
Quote from: Chap 164, Sec 10-16e
No student shall be required by any local or regional board of education to participate in any such family life program which may be offered within such public schools. A written notification to the local or regional board by the student's parent or legal guardian shall be sufficient to exempt the student from such program in its entirety or from any portion thereof so specified by the parent or legal guardian.

Rhode Island (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE16/16-22/16-22-18.HTM):
Quote from: Sections 16-22-17(c) (AIDS) and 16-22-18(c) (Health & Family Life
A parent or legal guardian may exempt his or her child from the program by written directive to the principal of the school. No child so exempted shall be penalized academically by reason of the exemption.

Massachusetts (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/71-32a.htm):
Quote from: Titl XII, Chapter 71, Section 32A
Every city, town, regional school district or vocational school district implementing or maintaining curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues shall adopt a policy ensuring parental/guardian notification. Such policy shall afford parents or guardians the flexibility to exempt their children from any portion of said curriculum through written notification to the school principal. No child so exempted shall be penalized by reason of such exemption.

AND New York (http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cnt=Document&db=NY%2DCRR%2DF%2DTOC%3BTOCDUMMY&docname=341836578&findtype=W&fn=%5Ftop&ifm=NotSet&pbc=4BF3FCBE&rlt=CLID%5FFQRLT118551713310&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault%2Ewl&rs=WEBL9%2E09&service=Find&spa=nycrr%2D1000&vr=2%2E0)
Quote from: NYS Education Regulations Sec 135.3(b)(2) & (c)(1)(i)
No pupil shall be required to receive instruction concerning the methods of prevention of AIDS if the parent or legal guardian of such pupil has filed with the principal of the school which the pupil attends a written request that the pupil not participate in such instruction, with an assurance that the pupil will receive such instruction at home.

In fact, almost every state (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf) that does not require solely abstinence-only sex education provides for some form of  parental opt-out.   And in my opinion, the law in the remaining handful of states is suspect.

Why shouldn't the Northeast law provide an opt-out?  It would put our law in line with almost all others.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 03, 2009, 01:22:32 pm
Can we end debate on this amendment? :P

Your law was proposed at 02:49:35 am Eastern on Friday, October 2.  Under the SOAP, it should be open for debate until 02:49:35 am Eastern on Monday, October 5.  Votes on the two(?) unfriendly amendments should occur from that time until 02:49:35 am on Tuesday, October 6.  A vote on the final bill will be held thereafter, open for 24 hours after the Lt. Governor promptly certifies the vote on the unfriendly amendments - likely some time on Wednesday, October 7.

Unless you want to move to hold a vote earlier.  That vote would have to be open for 24 hours, which will move the votes on the amendments up to tomorrow, if successful.  Not much of a change, really - maybe half-a-day.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 03, 2009, 01:42:17 pm
In fact, almost every state (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf) that does not require solely abstinence-only sex education provides for some form of  parental opt-out.   And in my opinion, the law in the remaining handful of states is suspect.

Why shouldn't the Northeast law provide an opt-out?  It would put our law in line with almost all others.

Perhaps it's because the Northeast is more courageous on this issue?

I understand the want to cop out for "religious reasons," but the truth is that there's really nothing to be taught in the original that specifically conflicts with religion.  There's nothing in the bible that says that boys don't have penises, and there's nothing in the bible that says condoms don't prevent the spread of disease.

It's a clear priority of the class to mention that abstinence is the only way to prevent disease and pregnancy for sure.  If parents have concerns, they should supplement the class with their own teachings that, even though condoms are available, it's morally wrong to have sex before you're married, or that homosexuality is a sinful choice, or whatever.

This class does not lecture about morals, it simply provides factual information that, frankly, it's crucial people wind up hearing.  Opt-out is a relic of our conservative, puritan heritage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 03, 2009, 02:03:34 pm
Perhaps it's because the Northeast is more courageous on this issue?

I understand the want to cop out for "religious reasons," but the truth is that there's really nothing to be taught in the original that specifically conflicts with religion.  There's nothing in the bible that says that boys don't have penises, and there's nothing in the bible that says condoms don't prevent the spread of disease.

It's a clear priority of the class to mention that abstinence is the only way to prevent disease and pregnancy for sure.  If parents have concerns, they should supplement the class with their own teachings that, even though condoms are available, it's morally wrong to have sex before you're married, or that homosexuality is a sinful choice, or whatever.

This class does not lecture about morals, it simply provides factual information that, frankly, it's crucial people wind up hearing.  Opt-out is a relic of our conservative, puritan heritage.

Many Christian churches teach that sex outside of wedlock is a sin, the ONLY permissible, 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence, and the use of condoms or other birth control methods is sinful.  It is in the Bible - spilling the seed and all that.  This class WILL lecture about morals - or more accurately, amorality - that using birth control is just a-okay, when many religious traditions teach otherwise.

If parents have concerns that the state will teach their children differently on moral matters, then they should be able to take them out of those classes without penalty.   Parents have the primary responsibility for the moral education of their children, not the state.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 03, 2009, 02:27:26 pm
Many Christian churches teach that sex outside of wedlock is a sin, the ONLY permissible, 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence, and the use of condoms or other birth control methods is sinful.  It is in the Bible - spilling the seed and all that.  This class WILL lecture about morals - or more accurate, amorality - that using birth control is just a-okay, when many religious traditions teach otherwise.

If parents have concerns that the state will teach their children differently on moral matters, then they should be able to take them out of those classes without penalty.   Parents have the primary responsibility for the moral education of their children, not the state.

The course presumably does not teach that it is "okay" that people have sex outside of wedlock, and it does not teach that condoms are not a sin—simply the mechanics of how they work and how they prevent disease.

The idea is to present information without judgement.  Parents are free, like I said, to supplement the class by providing the lecture about morality.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 03, 2009, 03:14:14 pm
Abstinence only sex education never worked and never will work. He have to face the reality. Proposed concessions, like parents contest, would change nothing. So what's the point of passing such act with such amendments?

We need a courage to move on now. We don't have to look at other solutions. We have to create our solution.

I'm ready to face any criticism during election season from those, who disagree with me and I know supporting such bill (not to mention co-authoring) may turn some voters against me, but until I'm the Representative, I will stand up for what I think (and I'm not alone there) is right for the people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 03, 2009, 03:29:19 pm
In fact, almost every state (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf) that does not require solely abstinence-only sex education provides for some form of  parental opt-out.   And in my opinion, the law in the remaining handful of states is suspect.

Why shouldn't the Northeast law provide an opt-out?  It would put our law in line with almost all others.

Perhaps it's because the Northeast is more courageous on this issue?

This.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 04, 2009, 05:36:46 am
Bump.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 04, 2009, 04:33:06 pm
Representative Alexander Hamilton:

Here are the three sets of proposed amendments.  Can you please specify which you have taken as friendly so that we know which need to proceed to a vote:

First: Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

There's no need to limit this to schools with 401+ students.  If anything, it's the rural populations that need access to this information even more.

Second: Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.


Certainly, districts will need to create a curriculum and text book publishers will need time to create materials to conform to the requirements of this act.  Once in place, there's no need to exclude people in the class of 2014, 13, and 12.

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.



Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.


Testicular cancer is a far greater risk to this age population, and can be detected much easier via self-examination.

Oh, and motion to strike Section D.4.  I'd gladly debate its merit as a separate bill, but it seems ill-placed in this one.

I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

As I understand, you've deemed the proposed Teaching About Homosexualty and Freedom of Conscience amendments unfriendly.  What about the Proposed Amendment striking Section D.4?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 04, 2009, 11:07:13 pm
I apologize, but I simply cannot be up at 2:49 AM to bring the Amendments to the Safe Sex Education Bill. I will do so now, and since it appears there is no further debate, I do not believe it would block any Representative from sharing their opinions of the Bill.

Also, since Representative Hamilton has not confirmed which Amendments are friendly, and which are not, they shall all be brought to a vote:

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

Spon: Rep. cinyc

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please vote Aye, nay, or Abstain. Voting last twenty-four hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 04, 2009, 11:35:47 pm
Before voting begins, please allow me to make one last plea for my Freedom of Conscience Amendment.

As many of you know, the Atlasian Supreme Court recently decided a controversial case called Peter v. Atlasia, striking down an Act that would have otherwise prohibited minors from attending places that try to make someone who thinks they are gay not be gay.  Justice Sam Spade struck down that Act in part because it "violate[d] a parent’s fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of his children in the manner he sees fit."

Without my amendment, the Safe Sex Education Bill suffers from a similar flaw and is Constitutionally suspect.  The Northeast Assembly's first act ought not to be to pass a constitutionally suspect law.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 04, 2009, 11:45:14 pm
Freedom of Conscience Amendment: Nay.



Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.: I believe this was accepted as friendly, but Aye, anyway.



Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with: Again, this was accepted as friendly.  Aye.



Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.


Aye.  Whether or not you agree that homosexuality is moral and acceptable, you have to realize that there currently are and always will be sexually active homosexual teens.  As such, it is crucial to provide information to this population regarding sexually transmitted diseases, especially considering that they are especially vulnerable to HIV transmission and are contracting the disease at a startlingly increasing rate.



Section B.5, motion to amend: Again, this was friendly.  Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 04, 2009, 11:51:03 pm
Curious bystander, what is the purpose of having a Speaker if the Lt. Governor is doing all the jobs of the Speaker?

Forgive me if I missed something, as I have been quite busy and haven't had the opportunity to look over the SOAP guidelines. Was the Speaker eliminated in favor of the President of the Assembly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 04, 2009, 11:52:33 pm
I apologize, but I simply cannot be up at 2:49 AM to bring the Amendments to the Safe Sex Education Bill. I will do so now, and since it appears there is no further debate, I do not believe it would block any Representative from sharing their opinions of the Bill.

Also, since Representative Hamilton has not confirmed which Amendments are friendly, and which are not, they shall all be brought to a vote:

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

Spon: Rep. cinyc

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please vote Aye, nay, or Abstain. Voting last twenty-four hours.


I think you missed the vote on the motion to strike Section D.4.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 04, 2009, 11:55:32 pm
Curious bystander, what is the purpose of having a Speaker if the Lt. Governor is doing all the jobs of the Speaker?

Forgive me if I missed something, as I have been quite busy and haven't had the opportunity to look over the SOAP guidelines. Was the Speaker eliminated in favor of the President of the Assembly?

The Lt. Governor usually presides over the Senate, but the Speaker takes over when the Lt. Governor publicly states he is unavailable.   

Presiding over the Senate (and casting tie votes) gives the Lt. Governor something to do.  His other Constitutional duties are fairly slim - pretty much just sitting around waiting for the Governor to resign.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 04, 2009, 11:56:33 pm
Curious bystander, what is the purpose of having a Speaker if the Lt. Governor is doing all the jobs of the Speaker?

Forgive me if I missed something, as I have been quite busy and haven't had the opportunity to look over the SOAP guidelines. Was the Speaker eliminated in favor of the President of the Assembly?

The Lt. Governor usually presides over the Senate, but the Speaker takes over when the Lt. Governor publicly states he is unavailable.   

Presiding over the Senate (and casting tie votes) gives the Lt. Governor something to do.  His other Constitutional duties are fairly slim - pretty much just sitting around waiting for the Governor to resign.

Thanks for clearing that up and I agree with the rationale.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 05, 2009, 12:05:57 am
Presiding over the Senate (and casting tie votes) gives the Lt. Governor something to do.  His other Constitutional duties are fairly slim - pretty much just sitting around waiting for the Governor to resign.

The logical solution would then be to abolish the Lieutenant Governorship.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 05, 2009, 02:05:10 am
Freedom of Conscience Amendment: Aye.

Not including this amendment renders the bill unconstitutional.

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.:
I believe this was accepted as friendly, Aye.

Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it:
I believe this was accepted as friendly, so Aye.

Had it not been, I would be voting nay.  2011 is too soon to be phasing a new curriculum requirement in and may harm current students' chances to take AP or other courses.  There's not enough time to plan.  Any new curriculum requirement should start with incoming freshmen who have not yet begun to plan their schedules and have yet to take any similar classes that suddenly don't count due to some newfangled regional mandate.

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
Nay.

Another thing that's controversial and best left to be taught at home.

Motion to amend Section B.5:
I believe this was accepted as friendly, Aye.

Motion to strike Section D.4:
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 05, 2009, 03:04:18 am
I assume we're voting on amendments now, not debating amendments now?

Freedom of Conscience Amendment: Aye

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2: Aye

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 and replace it with other words: Aye

Motion to amend Section B, with the insertion of subsection 6: Nay

Motion to amend Section B, subsection 5: Aye

Motion to remove Section D, subsection 4: Nay

Personally, I believe that Section D, subsection 4 should be included in whatever act presently legalises abortion, however in absense of an amending Act, I am satisfied with including it here. I would ideally like to see an Act to Amend both this Act and the Act legalising abortion to include this subsection in that Act and to remove it from this Act.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 05, 2009, 06:17:49 am
Freedom of Conscience Amendment - Nay

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity - Aye

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6 - Aye

Section B.5, motion to amend - Aye

As a cosponsor and also on behalf of not-present Rep. Hamilton I can confirm, that, beside Freedom of Conscience Amendment, these are friendly amendment to the bill 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 05, 2009, 08:11:18 am
Personally, I believe that Section D, subsection 4 should be included in whatever act presently legalises abortion, however in absense of an amending Act, I am satisfied with including it here. I would ideally like to see an Act to Amend both this Act and the Act legalising abortion to include this subsection in that Act and to remove it from this Act.

If we're going to discuss abortion in this bill, then I'm going to want to insert some stuff on parental notification.  Frankly, I strongly suggest it get removed and re-introduced as a separate bill, or we're going to get bogged down on this bill for quite some time.  It's going to prove to be a distraction.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 05, 2009, 12:52:25 pm
Personally, I believe that Section D, subsection 4 should be included in whatever act presently legalises abortion, however in absense of an amending Act, I am satisfied with including it here. I would ideally like to see an Act to Amend both this Act and the Act legalising abortion to include this subsection in that Act and to remove it from this Act.

If we're going to discuss abortion in this bill, then I'm going to want to insert some stuff on parental notification.  Frankly, I strongly suggest it get removed and re-introduced as a separate bill, or we're going to get bogged down on this bill for quite some time.  It's going to prove to be a distraction.

We're not going to get bogged down on this bill for some time unless we amend the SOPA.  An up or down vote on the bill with all friendly and passed amendments is next.  There's no further opportunity for amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 05, 2009, 12:54:34 pm
We're not going to get bogged down on this bill for some time unless we amend the SOPA.  An up or down vote on the bill with all friendly and passed amendments is next.  There's no further opportunity for amendment.

Oh.  All the more reason to drop that section, then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 05, 2009, 03:02:29 pm
Before voting begins, please allow me to make one last plea for my Freedom of Conscience Amendment.

As many of you know, the Atlasian Supreme Court recently decided a controversial case called Peter v. Atlasia, striking down an Act that would have otherwise prohibited minors from attending places that try to make someone who thinks they are gay not be gay.  Justice Sam Spade struck down that Act in part because it "violate[d] a parent’s fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of his children in the manner he sees fit."

Without my amendment, the Safe Sex Education Bill suffers from a similar flaw and is Constitutionally suspect.  The Northeast Assembly's first act ought not to be to pass a constitutionally suspect law.

Thank you.

For what it's worth, I'd be willing to defend this one in front of any court.

Parents do have some level of direction in choosing what their children are taught, it's true.  But this is expressed through representative government and laws passed by this legislature.  Parents do not have a fundamental right to refuse their child be taught math, or to refuse their child participate in a history class on World War I.

It's the legislature that designs core curricula for students.  This sexual education proposal is a new addition to that core curriculum.

In Peter v. Atlasia, you have a question of religious freedom.  Though I disagree with the ruling, you can see how the court attempted to extend "trying to make your child not be gay" as a religious "freedom."

The classroom is not teaching or preaching morality, nor is it preventing it from being taught elsewhere.  It is not saying that students should engage in sex (indeed, it says that abstinence is the only way to guarantee protection from pregnancy and disease).  It says that all students are required to obtain a basic level of knowledge in the realm of public health for the good of the whole.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no religion that says that boys and girls do not have sexual organs, there is no religion that disputes the mechanical workings of different birth control methods, there is no religion that states that gays simply do not exist.  It is a fact-based, not morality-based class.

Frankly, "religion" is used in this debate only as an excuse to mask adults being uncomfortable with someone talking to their kids about sex.  It's understandable that parents want some level of control in this arena, but we're talking about post-puberty kids here.  If their parents don't want to take this on, it does everyone a disservice in the form of higher rates of disease transmission and unwanted pregnancies.  You don't need a study to tell you that kids eventually figure out what goes where even if schools and parents stay silent.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2009, 08:54:36 pm
So far, only Representatives Hamilton and Antonio V have yet to vote on the Amendments. Voting lasts until 12:00 tonight.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 05, 2009, 10:27:32 pm
All non votes are counted as nay?  What planet is this?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2009, 10:31:03 pm
All non votes are counted as nay?  What planet is this?

Oh My GOD! I misread the SOAP! I apologize to the Assembly for lack of intelligence on my part. I shall delete the Bill and re tabulate the Amendment votes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 05, 2009, 11:01:55 pm
I apologize, but I simply cannot be up at 2:49 AM to bring the Amendments to the Safe Sex Education Bill. I will do so now, and since it appears there is no further debate, I do not believe it would block any Representative from sharing their opinions of the Bill.

Also, since Representative Hamilton has not confirmed which Amendments are friendly, and which are not, they shall all be brought to a vote:

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

Spon: Rep. cinyc              NAY
 
Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate                 AYE

Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate             NAY

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate                  NAY

Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate                   AYE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please vote Aye, nay, or Abstain. Voting last twenty-four hours.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 05, 2009, 11:01:56 pm
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 05, 2009, 11:03:18 pm
All non votes are counted as nay?  What planet is this?

That's only true for extraordinary motions waiving the SOAP, like those asking for less debate time, a shorter voting period or taking up multiple bills on the floor simultaneously (basically, to make sure that an outright majority of the Assembly consent to things that could disenfranchise members who might not be around every waking hour of the day).  Otherwise, abstentions should be treated as abstentions - i.e. non-votes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2009, 11:04:38 pm
All non votes are counted as nay?  What planet is this?

That's only true for extraordinary motions waiving the SOAP, like those asking for less debate time, a shorter voting period or taking up multiple bills on the floor simultaneously (basically, to make sure that an outright majority of the Assembly consent to things that could disenfranchise members who might not be around every waking hour of the day).  Otherwise, abstentions should be treated as abstentions - i.e. non-votes.

Again, I apologize for my misreading of the rules. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 05, 2009, 11:05:01 pm
AYE

On what?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2009, 11:06:10 pm

When I introduced the Bill with incorrect Amendments. Hamilton has told me that his posts are showing up a long time after their actually made. Don't ask me! :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2009, 11:11:40 pm
I hereby open up  a final vote on this Bill. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill

Section A: Exemptions

1.   This act only applies to public high schools (grades 9/10-12)
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.

Section B: Safe Sex Education Requirements

1.   Completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.
2.   The course must teach about methods of contraception, including condoms and birth-control pills, as well as proper usage of said methods.
3.   The course must teach that abstinence is the safest way to avoid venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
4.   The course must teach sexual anatomy, including the functions of male and female reproductive organs.
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Section C: Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention Education Requirements

1.   The course must teach how HIV/AIDS is contracted, the effects of HIV/AIDS, and how to best avoid HIV/AIDS.
2.   The course must also cover herpes, chlamydia, syphilis, hepatitis, and human papilloma virus (HPV).
3.   The course must provide a list of local clinics that provide testing for STDs.

Section D: Pregnancy Education Requirements

1.   The course must teach the developmental process of the pregnancy, including zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.
2.   The course must teach that adoption and abortion are both options for unwanted pregnancies.
3.   The course must provide a list of pregnancy help clinics that provide counseling and information regarding how to handle being pregnant.
4.   All women under the age of 18 seeking the termination of a pregnancy are required to attend a 90 minute counseling session that covers the actual procedure, the risk involved, how to handle an abortion and maintain mental and physical health, and alternative options to abortion such as adoption.

Section E: Privacy Requirements

1.   The course must respect the students’ right to privacy.
2.   Students must NOT be pressured into answering questions they are uncomfortable with.
3.   Teachers are expected and required not to reveal any private details from private conversations related to the course material.

Section F: Clarification

1.   This act replaces all existing overlapping policy in the Northeast region as soon as it takes effect.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 05, 2009, 11:26:51 pm
Nay on the (likely unconstitutional) Safe Sex Education Bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 05, 2009, 11:35:45 pm
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 05, 2009, 11:54:34 pm
Now hold on.  Before we can vote, the Lt. Governor needs to resolve our ties.  :\


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 06, 2009, 12:06:09 am
Now hold on.  Before we can vote, the Lt. Governor needs to resolve our ties.  :\

There can't be ties with 5 votes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 12:12:30 am
Now hold on.  Before we can vote, the Lt. Governor needs to resolve our ties.  :\
If you include Alexander Hamilton's votes, there should be no ties.  Hamilton's vote should be counted, either because the vote should have been held open until 2:49AM or because Hamilton got it in within 24 hours of the Lt. Governor opening the vote at 12:07AM yesterday.

Including Hamilton's votes:
The Freedom of Conscience Amendment and Homosexuality Amendments (B.6) were voted down, 2 Aye to 3 Nay.
The Motion on D.4 was either never put to a vote or defeated 0-2.

The Motions to strike A.2 and amend B.5 passed unanimously (5-0).  
The Motion to amend A.3 passed 3-1.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 06, 2009, 06:12:43 am
Aye

I also apologize for having been absent yesterday and the day before. I had both a lot of shcool work and connection problems.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 07:21:32 am
Now hold on.  Before we can vote, the Lt. Governor needs to resolve our ties.  :\
If you include Alexander Hamilton's votes, there should be no ties.  Hamilton's vote should be counted, either because the vote should have been held open until 2:49AM or because Hamilton got it in within 24 hours of the Lt. Governor opening the vote at 12:07AM yesterday.

I wasn't counting Hamilton's votes, because it was stated that the vote was to be closed at 12:00 and Hamilton got his in after that.  So, which is it: 12:00, 12:07, or 2:49?  Frankly this seems all too arbitrary for my taste, like we're making stuff up as we go along.

In any case, I don't think I have much use for this bill anymore.  I'll give my decision later today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 06, 2009, 11:20:41 am
Sorry, I might get lost

When will we end with amendments debate and vote on the bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 11:33:05 am
Sorry, I might get lost

When will we end with amendments debate and vote on the bill?

You're already lost.  I believe we're voting on final passage right now.

This body is in desperate need of new governing rules.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 06, 2009, 01:03:10 pm
Damn, so much chaos there

Anyway

AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 01:16:48 pm
Sorry, I might get lost

When will we end with amendments debate and vote on the bill?

You're already lost.  I believe we're voting on final passage right now.

This body is in desperate need of new governing rules.

No - we just need the rules to be followed and to work out any kinks.

The main problem is that this bill was put on the floor by Hamilton before the vote on the SOAP was finalized very early in the morning for most of us, and the Lt. Governor changed the voting period from when it should have started.  No one should be expected to open voting at 2:49AM. 

I would expect the Lt. Governor to introduce the next bill at a more sane hour (between 9AM and 9PM Eastern) so that the schedule is clearer and cleaner.  We'll then have 72 hours to debate and propose amendments, followed by 24 hours to vote on any unfriendly amendments and 24 hours to vote on final passage.  4 or 5 days, depending on whether there are unfriendly amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 01:25:55 pm
Nay.

I will say that I support what this bill is trying to do.  In truth, I am disappointed that it did not go far enough.

But though I support this idea behind it, I do not believe the Assembly followed appropriate procedure regarding this bill.  As was pointed out, my motion to strike D.4 was never brought to a vote.  This entire process was a confusing mess, with people being told they could vote in a way inconsistent with the standing rules of the body.

Without following proper procedure, this law will be rightfully rejected by the courts as illegitimate.  I have no interest in being a party to a vote for an unenforceable law such as this.

I encourage the sponsors of the bill to reintroduce the bill.  I will be glad to support it should it be presented to the Assembly in a fair way consistent with the rules.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 06, 2009, 01:28:38 pm
This entire process was a confusing mess, with people being told they could vote in a way inconsistent with the standing rules of the body.

And by your vote you are making it even more so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 01:40:55 pm
This entire process was a confusing mess, with people being told they could vote in a way inconsistent with the standing rules of the body.

And by your vote you are making it even more so.

How so?  An aye vote is the one that propagates the mess.

Why should we expect the public to follow our rules when we don't even follow our own?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 06, 2009, 02:57:12 pm
So, now we need Smid to vote , and if he votes nay, then we'll need MR President to break the tie.
I predict a long time of legislative stagnation...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 03:21:03 pm
I call for an emergency vote to revisit the SOAP to address its unconstitutionality.

The SOAP provides a mechanism for overriding the Governor's veto.  However, by Article IV, Section xi, the Legislature is constitutionally prohibited from doing so.  Once legislation has been vetoed, it is dead for good.

In addition to the constitutional issue, I have amended to remove the set-in-stone time requirement to give the LG more discretion for starting votes, so that votes need not be opened or closed in the middle of the night.  It further allows for him to, at his discretion, allow debate to continue past the firm 72-hour mark.

As such, I motion to amend as shown in red:




Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives, the Governor and any concerned Northeast citizen shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation or a Northeast citizen's signature for proposed citizen legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c), (d), and (e) and (f), the Lt. Governor shall place legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor (on behalf and stating the name of the sponsor) in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not place more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative, initial sponsoring citizen, or the Governor before placing legislation from other Representatives or the Governor that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (e) and (f), only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall place such piece of proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.
(d) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(b) of this Standing Order to place more than one piece of legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor at any given time.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall place such additional pieces of proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately at the end of the voting period.
(e) Except as provided in subsection (a), the Lt. Governor shall place legislation successfully proposed by citizens on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any current legislation then on the Northeast Assembly floor is finally voted upon or tabled.
(f) The Lt. Governor shall place any legislation that is vetoed by the Governor on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after such veto.  Veto override votes may occur while other legislation is on the Northeast Assembly floor.
(f g) Nothing in this Section 2 shall allow the Lt. Governor to do anything but place proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor on behalf of the sponsor of such legislation.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate  for no less than until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e) The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  A final vote on veto overrides shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation or veto override shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.



Based on my understanding, we are now to vote immediately on whether or not to allow a suspension of the rules and allow debate to reopen on the need for modification of the SOAP.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 03:57:18 pm
I call for an emergency vote to revisit the SOAP to address its unconstitutionality.

The SOAP provides a mechanism for overriding the Governor's veto.  However, by Article IV, Section xi, the Legislature is constitutionally prohibited from doing so.  Once legislation has been vetoed, it is dead for good.

I don't see what you're claiming in Article IV, Clause xi.  Here's the text:
Quote
The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.
(emphasis added)

In other words, as I read it, the GOVERNOR can't veto a bill a second time should the legislature pass it again - by a simple majority.  I see no prohibition on us putting vetoed legislation up to another vote.  What am I missing?  Is the General Assembly (not defined in the Constitution) some other body?

In addition to the constitutional issue, I have amended to remove the set-in-stone time requirement to give the LG more discretion for starting votes, so that votes need not be opened or closed in the middle of the night.  It further allows for him to, at his discretion, allow debate to continue past the firm 72-hour mark.

I have no problem with this amendment or your motion as long as you also amend the motion to allow other business to go forward while we debate this minor, common-sense change to the SOAP.  We have quite a queue building up, including on legislation requested by the GM.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 04:27:21 pm
Well, instead of me trying to interpret that sentence, let me put it this way instead: It's an issue of separation of powers.  There is nothing in the Northeastern Constitution that provides for a veto override.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 04:36:50 pm
Well, instead of me trying to interpret that sentence, let me put it this way instead: It's an issue of separation of powers.  There is nothing in the Northeastern Constitution that provides for a veto override.

The third sentence of Article IV, Clause xi allows the General Assembly of the Northeast to pass the law again, rendering it veto-proof.  That's equivalent an override.

We really should propose an amendment to the constitution cleaning up the language Article IV (what the heck is the General Assembly now - us, I'd assume, since there is no other Assembly?) and creating a veto override provision that makes more sense - perhaps requiring a 2/3rds vote.  The ond rules made sense because there would be at least a one month delay in between when a law was vetoed and came up again for a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 06, 2009, 06:44:40 pm
Aye aye aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 06, 2009, 08:01:18 pm
I am very concerned about the lack of a freedom of conscience section in the Bill, however I believe the curriculum should be introduced into schools as a matter of priority, pending any legal challenge. I therefore vote in favour of the Sexual Education Bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 06, 2009, 08:07:24 pm
(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/3715_06_10_09_9_04_47.jpg)

Since everyone has voted, there is no reason to keep voting open until Midnight. :)

With four Ayes and two Nays, I hereby certify that the Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill has received enough votes to pass.

I hereby present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 06, 2009, 08:12:09 pm
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009
Three sections shall be added to the Northeast Tax Code as follows:

1.  Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit
(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $1,000 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 08:54:42 pm
Thank you, Mr. Lt. Governor.

This temporary tax cut bill is in response to GM Purple State's suggestion (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2175602#msg2175602) that the Northeast provide "a one-time tax credit for small businesses and middle-income workers" in order to fight the recession.   It is targeted to provide tax relief for ALL Atlasian taxpayers who pay taxes on earned income in 2009.

Section 1 provides for an investment tax credit to all Atlasian businesses,whether conducting business as a corporation, sole proprietorship, partnership or LLC.  It allows Atlasian businesses to expense the cost of any capital investment made in 2009 if it would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over a number of years.  It includes a recapture provision so that Atlasian businesses can't game the system buy buying capital assets and selling them later this year or next (i.e. they'd have to pay back the portion of the credit that they otherwise would not have been able to depreciate under current law to the government if they sell the property).  And it includes a provision for the Northeast Tax Commissioner to promulgate regulations to prevent any other abuse.

It's my hope that the Investment Tax Credit would cause Northeast businesses to buy big ticket items like computer systems, cars and equipment, helping fuel economic recovery in the Northeast and the rest of Atlasia.

Section 2 provides a $1,000"making work pay" tax credit to all Northeast citizens who worked for a living this year.  That is, working Northeast citizens will not be required to pay the first $1,000 in tax that they otherwise would have. 

It's my hope that Northeast citizens will use their tax savings to make ends meet, pay down debt and buy stuff, stimulating the Northeast and Atlasian economies.

Section 3 provides a tax break for those Northeast citizens who have lost their job and are collecting unemployment benefits in 2009 and 2010.  The last thing they need to worry about in these tough economic times is how they're going to pay Northeast taxes that would otherwise be owed on their unemployment benefits.   It's also important to provide this tax relief to put our unemployed citizens on rough par with working Atlasians who are entitled to the $1,000 "making work pay tax" credit in 2009.

Granted, these tax relief provisions may put our budget temporarily into deficit.  But all three provisions are temporary.  In fact, the Investment Tax Credit may actually increase potential tax collections in future years, since companies otherwise would be depreciating those assets over time, cutting their tax bill in those years and may be subject to recapture.  And providing tax relief is the right thing to do in these tough economic times.

Thank you.  I now open the floor to debate and amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 09:07:42 pm
Since everyone has voted, there is no reason to keep voting open until Midnight. :)

With four Ayes and two Nays, I hereby certify that the Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill has received enough votes to pass.

I hereby present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.

The Governor has vetoed (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=71572.msg2181106#msg2181106) the Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 06, 2009, 09:13:41 pm
The Question before us is:

"Shall the Governor's veto of the Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill be overridden?"

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Also, Reps. are still allowed to debate and propose Amendments to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009, since this is a veto override.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 09:18:50 pm
I move that the vote on the veto override be suspended until the vote on Representative Mr.  Moderate's motion to amend the SOAP is resolved.  (And vote Aye)

I also vote Aye on Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to discuss amending the SOAP.

I think he needs another vote for it to come on the agenda. 

I also move that we discuss Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to amend the SOAP simultaneously with the current bill on the floor.   (And vote Aye)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 06, 2009, 09:21:42 pm
I move that the vote on the veto override be suspended until the vote on Representative Mr.  motion to amend the SOAP is resolved.  (And vote Aye)

I also vote Aye on Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to discuss amending the SOAP.

I think he needs another vote for it to come on the agenda. 

I also move that we discuss Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to amend the SOAP simultaneously with the current bill on the floor.   (And vote Aye)

Good point. I will remove this form the agenda, UNTIL the SOAP discussion is finished. So, make it short guys. I don't want to be overriding this veto in November! ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 09:22:54 pm
I move that the vote on the veto override be suspended until the vote on Representative Mr.  motion to amend the SOAP is resolved.  (And vote Aye)

I also vote Aye on Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to discuss amending the SOAP.

I think he needs another vote for it to come on the agenda. 

I also move that we discuss Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to amend the SOAP simultaneously with the current bill on the floor.   (And vote Aye)

Good point. I will remove this form the agenda, UNTIL the SOAP discussion is finished. So, make it short guys. I don't want to be overriding this veto in November! ;)

I don't think you can do this unilaterally.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 06, 2009, 09:28:48 pm
I move that the vote on the veto override be suspended until the vote on Representative Mr.  motion to amend the SOAP is resolved.  (And vote Aye)

I also vote Aye on Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to discuss amending the SOAP.

I think he needs another vote for it to come on the agenda. 

I also move that we discuss Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to amend the SOAP simultaneously with the current bill on the floor.   (And vote Aye)

Good point. I will remove this form the agenda, UNTIL the SOAP discussion is finished. So, make it short guys. I don't want to be overriding this veto in November! ;)

I don't think you can do this unilaterally.

You're probably right.

The Question Before us is:

"Shall the Assembly suspend voting on the override of the Governor's veto, until after debate on amending the SOAP has finished?" 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 06, 2009, 09:56:51 pm
Aye (on debating amendments to the SOAP).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 06, 2009, 11:37:29 pm
Aye (on debating amendments to the SOAP).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 07, 2009, 12:46:58 am
Sigh... Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 12:48:28 am
Well, under the SOAP, we can't take up the amendments to it until after the current piece of legislation is off of it.  So we either have to agree to my motion to take SOAP amendments under consideration simultaneously with the current legislation on the floor, or I may have to table my bill.

And we still have to decide what to do about the override.  That's why I made my motion to suspend voting until after the SOAP amendment discussion is complete.  There's no sense trying to override if we conclude that we don't have that power.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 12:49:10 am
Sigh... Aye

On what?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 07, 2009, 12:50:59 am

Isn't it clear ? on debating amendments to the SOAP


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 07, 2009, 12:54:24 am
Since we are amending SOAP, here is something to make us go faster. Debates have beeen really too long and we still have many things to debate...


Amendment to the SOAP

Section 3, subsection a) is amended as follows :

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate for no less than until fourty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 01:14:08 am
Since nobody seems to want to vote on holding two votes simultaneously, I hereby table the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009 so that we can discuss amendments to the SOAP ASAP.

I propose one additional set of amendments to the SOAP.  Let's call them the "If everyone has Voted Amendment", which makes clear that Lt. Governor Barnes' position that he can close votes early if everyone has voted is correct:

Quote
The second sentence of Section 3(d) shall be amended as follows:
Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. 

The third sentence of Section 3(f) shall be amended as follows:
Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. 

The third sentence of Section 3(h) shall be amended as follows:
Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier.

I support Representative Antonio V's amendment limiting debate to 48 hours (subject to deleting the override language if we agree we don't have that power).  That's about all we needed on the first bill.

I still question whether we are constitutionally blocked from overriding vetoes.  Under my interpretation of the New Northeast Constitution, if the Assembly passes a bill again after a veto, it is effectively overridden.  Perhaps the SOAP's terminology isn't correct - instead of a veto override, we should be calling it re-passage of the bill.   I'd be interested in hearing other Representatives' thoughts on the matter.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 07, 2009, 01:18:15 am
Since we are amending SOAP, here is something to make us go faster. Debates have beeen really too long and we still have many things to debate...


Amendment to the SOAP

Section 3, subsection a) is amended as follows :

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate for no less than until fourty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.

Aye on this


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 01:40:58 am
Aye on the Lt. Governor's question:
"Shall the Assembly suspend voting on the override of the Governor's veto, until after debate on amending the SOAP has finished?"


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 07, 2009, 07:34:22 am
Aye to suspend the override vote, however, I am amenable to having debate open and continue on the Economic Recovery Act.

I would also like to make known my support for the two proposed amendments to the SOAP by Rep. AntonioV and Rep. Cinyc.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 07, 2009, 08:01:45 am
I have just introduced legislation in the New Legislation thread calling for an amendment to the constitution to address what I believe to be a major constitutional gap regarding veto overrides.  If possible, I would like to further suspend the rules to allow the Assembly to address the amendment, concurrent with debate on the SOAP, to expedite the process and allow its placement on the October ballot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 02:35:42 pm
I have just introduced legislation in the New Legislation thread calling for an amendment to the constitution to address what I believe to be a major constitutional gap regarding veto overrides.  If possible, I would like to further suspend the rules to allow the Assembly to address the amendment, concurrent with debate on the SOAP, to expedite the process and allow its placement on the October ballot.

Aye

Even though I think we have the power to override vetoes under the current constitution by passing the same bill twice, we need to reform the process.  A simple majority vote (or even a 2/3rds vote since that's the same thing in an Assembly of 6) shouldn't be enough to override a veto.  I look forward to working with you on the amendment, which should also clean up the inconsistent use of Assembly/Legislature in Article IV.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 07, 2009, 03:34:37 pm
Since we are amending SOAP, here is something to make us go faster. Debates have beeen really too long and we still have many things to debate...


Amendment to the SOAP

Section 3, subsection a) is amended as follows :

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate for no less than until fourty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.

Aye


Quote
The second sentence of Section 3(d) shall be amended as follows:
Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. 

The third sentence of Section 3(f) shall be amended as follows:
Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. 

The third sentence of Section 3(h) shall be amended as follows:
Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 07, 2009, 05:40:10 pm
Since we are amending SOAP, here is something to make us go faster. Debates have beeen really too long and we still have many things to debate...


Amendment to the SOAP

Section 3, subsection a) is amended as follows :

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate for no less than until fourty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.

Aye on this


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 07, 2009, 06:44:51 pm
Aye on all of the SOAP amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 07:04:52 pm
Aye on all of the SOAP amendments, including the deletion of the veto override provisions.  If we want to override a veto under current law, all we need to do is reintroduce the bill the normal way and pass it again, in my opinion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 08, 2009, 04:46:42 am
I think all this got at least 4 votes now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 12, 2009, 05:24:01 am
Bump

We need to revive this, or this Assembly will be remembered as an epic fail.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 12, 2009, 05:24:55 am
Bump

We need to revive this, or this Assembly will be remembered as an epic fail.

I'm about to go rogue and just start posting my legislation here and forcing debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 12, 2009, 05:25:50 am
One of our Presidents please certify the results of the Amendments to the SOAP.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 12, 2009, 12:03:27 pm
IS THERE SOMEONE HERE ?!!!!!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 12, 2009, 01:48:01 pm
No.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 12, 2009, 03:32:46 pm
Oh hell, we didn't even had election and this is already desert...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 12, 2009, 07:16:16 pm
The Question is:

That - the amendments to the SOAP be accepted. All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 12, 2009, 07:32:52 pm
I have been reading through the SOAP and I am unsure whether we allow debate on the motion to over-ride the Governor's veto, or whether we merely vote to over-ride. As such, I believe the ordinary rules of procedure shall prevail, and am therefore allowing debate on the veto over-ride for a period of 24 hours. The Safe Sex Education Bill, as passed (and therefore as amended) is the Bill in question. Additional amendments to the Bill may not be moved as this would alter the Bill as vetoed. If amendments are moved and passed and incorporated into the Bill, the Bill would no longer be veto-proof and the Governor would still retain the right to veto. I am happy to hear debate on this ruling from the Chair, but I request that we limit debate to one comment per Representative. If I don't hear any opinions to the contrary on my ruling, I shall move debate on to the veto over-ride later today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 12, 2009, 08:06:23 pm
This is why the Mideast has no SOAP. There is more debate on what it means than on actual legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 12, 2009, 08:12:47 pm
I suggest opening an override vote ASAP so we can move on, we have a lot on the table.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 12, 2009, 09:54:44 pm
I hereby open up a vote to override the Governor's veto to the Safe Sex Education Act. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 12, 2009, 09:55:24 pm
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 12, 2009, 10:29:04 pm
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 12, 2009, 10:44:42 pm
aye

You can't vote wtf


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on October 12, 2009, 10:47:49 pm

I forgot I am not in the freedom loving pacific anymore. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 12, 2009, 10:48:51 pm

I forgot I am not in the freedom loving pacific anymore. ;)

Pacific legislature doesn't do anything. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on October 12, 2009, 11:03:02 pm

I forgot I am not in the freedom loving pacific anymore. ;)

Pacific legislature doesn't do anything. :)

Freedom from doing anything. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 12, 2009, 11:05:43 pm

The Gentlemen will suspend.

(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/3715_06_10_09_9_04_47.jpg)

This Assembly is voting, not debating regional legislatures.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 13, 2009, 01:42:07 am
Aye


Nay.

I thought you supported this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 01:44:30 am
Aye


Nay.

I thought you supported this.

He probably doesn't support overriding what the Governor thinks is best. BUT I DO!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 13, 2009, 02:32:29 am
Nay.

I thought you supported this.

I refer the honourable gentleman to a statement that I made in my office: 

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102893.msg2181176#msg2181176

I support the Bill and I support what it is trying to do, however I believe that it could be improved and I hope that the necessary amendments could be passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 13, 2009, 06:03:52 am
Ok, now it's clear. Kal and Mod please hurry up.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 06:04:47 am
Ok, now it's clear. Kal and Mod please hurry up.

Barnes is gonna have to break our tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 13, 2009, 07:03:46 am
Veto override?  We don't have the power to do that yet. We scrubbed the SOAP and the constitution is silent until the amendment gets a vote.

Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 13, 2009, 11:24:04 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Vepres on October 13, 2009, 11:42:05 pm
This is great! An assembly totally revived the region. Purple State, I hope you're paying attention to this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 13, 2009, 11:44:43 pm
This is great! An assembly totally revived the region. Purple State, I hope you're paying attention to this.

The Chair thanks the Governor for his kind words. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 14, 2009, 12:33:43 am
This is great! An assembly totally revived the region. Purple State, I hope you're paying attention to this.

As though I had nothing to do with this. ;)

I was always here watching and providing private pointers where needed. To quote one of the great animated shows of our generation, "If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 14, 2009, 08:43:32 am
The overriding passed. Mr President please notify that and introduce the next bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 14, 2009, 10:03:15 am
With three ayes, one nay, one abstention, and one no vote, the override of the Governor's veto has passed.

(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/3715_06_10_09_9_04_47.jpg)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 14, 2009, 10:12:00 am
Amendment to the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act

1. Section 2, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include "All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."

2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

Sponsor: Rep. Hamilton

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative Hamilton, has the floor.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 14, 2009, 10:27:52 am
Seems perfectly reasonable. At 16 you're responsible enough to freely decide this sort of things.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 10:29:56 am
Pretty self-explanatory. The bill is a fair compromise and I see no reason to go higher or lower.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 14, 2009, 11:56:29 am
Doesn't seem like urgent legislation or anything, but I definitely agree with it.  You have my support.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 01:10:31 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 14, 2009, 02:08:58 pm
I've been away for a bit.  For the record, I would have voted against the override.

I don't have a problem with the text of the current bill, though I'm undecided on how I will vote.  I do think that the tax bill I tabled to bring up the SOAP needs to be brought back on the floor at some point.  I move that we consider it next.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 14, 2009, 02:59:10 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:00:02 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 14, 2009, 03:19:59 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

Sorry, but this is absurd. I'm not especially mature, but I think I'm reasonable enough to decide whenever or not I want to have sex.

Hashemite, who is one of the most mature people around here, is just one year older.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:21:43 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:23:46 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:25:03 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

Because there is a big difference between 16 and 8, I doubt you even know the current legal standing anyways so you might as well be quiet. I could've made it 14. I was comfortable at that age and so are many others. Be happy with what you get.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:27:17 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

Because there is a big difference between 16 and 8, I doubt you even know the current legal standing anyways so you might as well be quiet. I could've made it 14. I was comfortable at that age and so are many others. Be happy with what you get.

It's pretty sickening that you are "comfortable" with child porn.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:27:48 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

Because there is a big difference between 16 and 8, I doubt you even know the current legal standing anyways so you might as well be quiet. I could've made it 14. I was comfortable at that age and so are many others. Be happy with what you get.

It's pretty sickening that you are "comfortable" with child porn.

This has nothing to do with porn you idiot. This is age of consent. What are you smoking?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:30:01 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

Because there is a big difference between 16 and 8, I doubt you even know the current legal standing anyways so you might as well be quiet. I could've made it 14. I was comfortable at that age and so are many others. Be happy with what you get.

It's pretty sickening that you are "comfortable" with child porn.

This has nothing to do with porn you idiot. This is age of consent. What are you smoking?

When you have old men having sex with 14 year old girls that is pretty much child porn.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:30:45 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

Because there is a big difference between 16 and 8, I doubt you even know the current legal standing anyways so you might as well be quiet. I could've made it 14. I was comfortable at that age and so are many others. Be happy with what you get.

It's pretty sickening that you are "comfortable" with child porn.

This has nothing to do with porn you idiot. This is age of consent. What are you smoking?

When you have old men having sex with 14 year old girls that is pretty much child porn.

First of all, no it isn't.
Second of all, the legislation actually prevents that, legally.
Third of all, if you don't know ANYTHING about ANYTHING, don't speak up on it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 14, 2009, 03:32:59 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

I never had sex, I never came close to have. I just want to feel free to do as soon as I'll want this and have the occasion.


This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

This argument is totally senseless. Nobody spoke about 8 years old.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:34:00 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

I never had sex, I never came close to have. I just want to feel free to do as soon as I'll want this and have the occasion.

You're 16, you still have time ;)

This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

This argument is totally senseless. Nobody spoke about 8 years old.

Rowan is senseless. I can't wait to see him lose in December.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:38:59 pm
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:39:43 pm
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.

You have no morals or values. Also, you're a terrible Senator. And a terrible Northeasterner. You don't eve know the current law on this issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:40:38 pm
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.

You have no morals or values. Also, you're a terrible Senator. And a terrible Northeasterner. You don't eve know the current law on this issue.

Oh right, wanting young teenagers to have sex with adults is having morals, I forgot. Silly me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:42:54 pm
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.

You have no morals or values. Also, you're a terrible Senator. And a terrible Northeasterner. You don't eve know the current law on this issue.

Oh right, wanting young teenagers to have sex with adults is having morals, I forgot. Silly me.

16 year olds are young adults. Don't be an idiot. Maybe I'll withdraw this bill and let the 12 year olds continue having sex just to spite you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 14, 2009, 03:46:30 pm
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.

I have a great sense of morals and values, don't care if you don't believe me. I just think morals and values are a personal question and have nothing to do with politics.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 14, 2009, 04:04:31 pm
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.

You have no morals or values. Also, you're a terrible Senator. And a terrible Northeasterner. You don't eve know the current law on this issue.

Section 3 of the current law (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=25617.0):
Quote
Section 3: Additions to Rape definitions

Any person of 16 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 12 years of age or younger is guilty of statutory rape.
Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape.

It's not clear that your proposal changes this section - you don't mention it by name in the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 04:07:15 pm
The bill was supposed to say Section 3. The other part has nothing to do with age of consent.

I amend my own bill to read:

Amendment to the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act


1. Section 3, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include "All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."

2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

And it's friendly.

Maybe made a typo but I think it still does the same thing anyways


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 14, 2009, 04:16:08 pm
The bill was supposed to say Section 3. The other part has nothing to do with age of consent.

I amend my own bill to read:

Amendment to the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act


1. Section 3, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include "All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."

2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

And it's friendly.

Maybe made a typo but I think it still does the same thing anyways

You're still not deleting the first clause of Section 3.

I see why current law needs to be tweaked a bit - under the law, a college senior who just turned  21 can theoretically end up going to jail for having sex with an incoming freshman who has yet to turn 18.  I'm not sure a blanket change for 16-year-olds is necessary - though it is the most common age of consent in the US.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 15, 2009, 12:18:32 am
Bump.

I think all is clear now, but we have to wait for another entire day because of rules...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 15, 2009, 12:51:42 am
Bump.

I think all is clear now, but we have to wait for another entire day because of rules...

Yeah - that's to make sure we all have a chance to see the legislation and propose changes - and know when we will hold a vote.  I was gone for about a day and missed the override vte since it passed by so fast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 15, 2009, 07:58:40 am
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

I don't want to speak for everyone, but when I was 16, yes, pretty much every moment was spent with pornography.  I mean, hello, we're talking about sixteen-year-olds.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 15, 2009, 11:41:53 am
Bump.

I think all is clear now, but we have to wait for another entire day because of rules...

Yeah - that's to make sure we all have a chance to see the legislation and propose changes - and know when we will hold a vote.  I was gone for about a day and missed the override vte since it passed by so fast.

Anyone who is absent is responsible for being. When I was, I apologized without complaining for what I missed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 15, 2009, 06:27:38 pm
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

I don't want to speak for everyone, but when I was 16, yes, pretty much every moment was spent with pornography.  I mean, hello, we're talking about sixteen-year-olds.

Lately, it seems like most of my conversations have been about porn. This is odd.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 15, 2009, 07:46:04 pm
The Veto Over-ride vote passed.

(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/3715_06_10_09_9_04_47.jpg)

The question is:

That - Debate on the Economic Recovery Tax Bill 2009 be now resumed.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "no," I believe the Ayes have it.

Debate is resumed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 15, 2009, 10:40:31 pm
The Veto Over-ride vote passed.

The question is:

That - Debate on the Economic Recovery Tax Bill 2009 be now resumed.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "no," I believe the Ayes have it.

Debate is resumed.

Actually, I think we're getting ready to vote on the age of consent bill.  I would appreciate it if my Economic Recovery Tax Bill of 2009 is taken up next, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 15, 2009, 10:41:36 pm
The Veto Over-ride vote passed.

The question is:

That - Debate on the Economic Recovery Tax Bill 2009 be now resumed.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "no," I believe the Ayes have it.

Debate is resumed.

Actually, I think we're getting ready to vote on the age of consent bill.  I would appreciate it if my Economic Recovery Tax Bill of 2009 is taken up next, though.

We need a final vote. And your bill is next.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 15, 2009, 10:50:44 pm
The Veto Over-ride vote passed.

The question is:

That - Debate on the Economic Recovery Tax Bill 2009 be now resumed.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "no," I believe the Ayes have it.

Debate is resumed.

Actually, I think we're getting ready to vote on the age of consent bill.  I would appreciate it if my Economic Recovery Tax Bill of 2009 is taken up next, though.

We need a final vote. And your bill is next.

That's correct. Debating on the Age of Consent Bill ends tomorrow, and then a final vote lasts for twenty-four hours. And I will be placing the Economic Recovery Tax Bill of 2009 as the next Bill to be considered.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 15, 2009, 10:51:39 pm
Can we get a final vote now? There is no debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 15, 2009, 11:26:55 pm
Can we get a final vote now? There is no debate.

Rep. Kalwejt  hasn't said anything since the bill was brought to the floor.  One of the reasons we have a 48-hour debate period is to allow all of us time to check in and give input on a bill.  Not every Representative is constantly online when the real world dictates otherwise.

And I still don't think you've struck the old 12-year-old age of consent close-in exception to my satisfaction.   I think you need to say something like "Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following . . ." instead of "Section 3, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include . . ."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 15, 2009, 11:30:25 pm
Can we get a final vote now? There is no debate.

Rep. Kalwejt  hasn't said anything since the bill was brought to the floor.  One of the reasons we have a 48-hour debate period is to allow all of us time to check in and give input on a bill.  Not every Representative is constantly online when the real world dictates otherwise.

And I still don't think you've struck the old 12-year-old age of consent close-in exception to my satisfaction.   I think you need to say something like "Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following . . ." instead of "Section 3, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include . . ."

Kalwejt posted a leave of absence. I'll accept your amendment as friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 16, 2009, 08:06:57 am
As I stated, my computer was broken and I was for one week off-line

Now, I'm back


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 16, 2009, 03:09:08 pm
As I stated, my computer was broken and I was for one week off-line

Now, I'm back

GOod


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 16, 2009, 05:09:40 pm
While I believe that the age of consent should be 15, not 16, I support the amendment to move on


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 17, 2009, 07:36:28 am
Good.

I think the idea of keeping debating is hopeless, since nobody evolved in his positions, nor had a reason to do. We should just vote it now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 17, 2009, 11:31:39 am
I hereby open up a final vote on this bill, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Amendment to the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act

1. Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following "All those persons of 16 years of age or older, not incarcerated for crimes, shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."

2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 17, 2009, 11:34:12 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 17, 2009, 01:14:28 pm
Aye, because the bill drops the close-in exception for 12-year-olds.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 17, 2009, 01:20:37 pm
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 17, 2009, 01:23:21 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 17, 2009, 01:37:53 pm
This passed. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 17, 2009, 02:17:40 pm
Aye, FTR.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 17, 2009, 02:30:50 pm
Aye, FTR.

Not FTR - the vote is open until 12:31 PM tomorrow unless everyone votes sooner (Smid, that is).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 17, 2009, 02:31:41 pm
Aye, FTR.

Not FTR - the vote is open until 12:31 PM tomorrow unless everyone votes sooner (Smid, that is).

We need to find someone to put our work in the wiki. Maybe each bill's sponsor can update the wiki if their bill passes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 17, 2009, 04:00:00 pm
Aye, FTR.

Not FTR - the vote is open until 12:31 PM tomorrow unless everyone votes sooner (Smid, that is).

We need to find someone to put our work in the wiki. Maybe each bill's sponsor can update the wiki if their bill passes.

I believe this is part of the job responsibilities of the Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 17, 2009, 04:47:14 pm
Aye, FTR.

Not FTR - the vote is open until 12:31 PM tomorrow unless everyone votes sooner (Smid, that is).

We need to find someone to put our work in the wiki. Maybe each bill's sponsor can update the wiki if their bill passes.

I'll do as soon as mine will pass. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 17, 2009, 05:06:16 pm
Aye, FTR.

Not FTR - the vote is open until 12:31 PM tomorrow unless everyone votes sooner (Smid, that is).

We need to find someone to put our work in the wiki. Maybe each bill's sponsor can update the wiki if their bill passes.

I believe this is part of the job responsibilities of the Lt. Governor.

Okay. Barnes can do it then!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on October 17, 2009, 05:12:35 pm
Remember to use categories people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 17, 2009, 07:30:36 pm
Remember to use categories people.

Yes, article on me have no category at all :/


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 18, 2009, 12:30:49 am
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 18, 2009, 12:40:46 am
With all Representatives having voted, I end voting on this bill.

With six ayes, and zero nays, this Bill has passed unanimously.

(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/3715_06_10_09_9_04_47.jpg)

Since, this is an Amendment to an already existing law, does it require the Governor's signature?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 18, 2009, 12:41:23 am
It should. It is a law in its own right as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 18, 2009, 12:59:17 am
Yes, it still requires the Governor's signature. At least, that's how it typically works in real life, anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 18, 2009, 02:23:17 am
Next bill ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 03:51:55 am
Next bill ?

We've got tax cuts coming up.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 18, 2009, 11:05:05 am
Alright, well I present the Bill to the Governor for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 18, 2009, 11:06:55 am
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009
Three sections shall be added to the Northeast Tax Code as follows:

1.  Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit

(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $1,000 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.

Sponsor: Rep. Ciync

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 18, 2009, 11:26:31 am
I have a question for the President.

Is there a schedulde for order of bill for consideration and, if so, can you publish that order

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 18, 2009, 11:31:29 am
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009
Three sections shall be added to the Northeast Tax Code as follows:

1.  Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit

(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $1,000 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.

Sponsor: Rep. Ciync

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


I have no problem with making unemployment benefits tax deductible... I think that's a great idea that saves people a lot of trouble down the road.  I'm a little bit concerned about the $1,000 giveaway.

That's a lot of money.  Like, a lot of money.  Especially when you multiply it by the population of the Northeast, and especially when you consider that we're just the regional government.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 18, 2009, 11:42:45 am
I have a question for the President.

Is there a schedulde for order of bill for consideration and, if so, can you publish that order

Thank you.

Well, I'm trying to do it by the order in which they were introduced in the Legislation thread.  And since cinyc very kindly tabled his Bill, so we could debate changes to the SOAP, I feel obliged to go back to it.

Certain things, I believe, require immediate attention, such as the Constitutional Amendment to limit the number of Reps., proposed by Hamilton. Which will probably be the first or second Bill considered in the next Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 18, 2009, 01:33:25 pm
I have no problem with making unemployment benefits tax deductible... I think that's a great idea that saves people a lot of trouble down the road.  I'm a little bit concerned about the $1,000 giveaway.

That's a lot of money.  Like, a lot of money.  Especially when you multiply it by the population of the Northeast, and especially when you consider that we're just the regional government.

Well, we can discuss lowering it if you think it's too much.  But, as drafted, if our tax rate is 5% (which would be about right for a Northeast US state), it will have the effect of exempting the first $20,000 in taxable earned income (after deductions - which the Northeast might not even have) from tax.  It was supposed to be the rough equivalent of not taxing the first $25,000 in unemployment compensation.

What is our tax rate?  Best I can tell, it's a flat 5.5% (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_March_2005_Tax_Initiative) - meaning the bill would exempt the first $18,182 in earned income from taxes.

My statement on the tax bill is back on page 13, here (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2181104#msg2181104).  Basically, this bill is partially in response to GM Purple State's suggestion that we provide tax relief to help the Northeast weather the recession.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 18, 2009, 02:26:10 pm
Certain things, I believe, require immediate attention, such as the Constitutional Amendment to limit the number of Reps., proposed by Hamilton. Which will probably be the first or second Bill considered in the next Assembly.

Don't. I'm working with him on a better version right now, and Hamilton will probably renounce to his Amendment as soon as we'll reach an agreement.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 18, 2009, 02:40:45 pm
I've been crunching the numbers.  Yeah - $1,000 seems a bit high.  According to the GM (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2124143#msg2124143), our budget was balanced at $780 million.  Our population is 77 million.  Assume half of our citizens would be eligible for this credit.  (Assume the others aren't because they are minors who don't work, citizens who earn too little to take full advantage of it, or only have investment income which isn't eligible for the credit).  A $1,000 credit would cost about $38.5 billion - or 5% of expected tax revenues.  That's too high, even though we're likely to get $7 billion in stimulus funding.

A $250 credit seems about right - under my assumptions, it would cost about $9.6 billion, or 1.2% of expected  tax revenues - and would be partially offset by stimulus funds.  

I doubt the investment tax credit will cost a ton - maybe a billion - and we might get some sales taxes revenue on increased purchases and increased corporate taxes in the future.   Plus, it will put people to work making and buying stuff.  

The cost of exempting the first $25,000 in unemployment benefits from tax will depend on the unemployment rate.   As of right now, with 7.5% unemployment, it might cost us $4 billion in lost tax revenue (assuming half of our citizens are in the workforce) - IF all unemployed citizens collect $25,000 in the first place.  Hopefully, most get jobs and never come close.

The GM said we'd probably have to go into temporary deficit with our stimulus efforts - and if we don't, sales tax revenues would fall next year anyway, putting us into deficit.

I'd appreciate other input before further amending the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 03:59:07 pm
Certain things, I believe, require immediate attention, such as the Constitutional Amendment to limit the number of Reps., proposed by Hamilton. Which will probably be the first or second Bill considered in the next Assembly.

Don't. I'm working with him on a better version right now, and Hamilton will probably renounce to his Amendment as soon as we'll reach an agreement.

Yeah Antonio and I already agreed on a final version to introduce


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 04:00:26 pm
I am completely content with this bill and so far see nothing I'd like to change.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 18, 2009, 04:36:57 pm
Certain things, I believe, require immediate attention, such as the Constitutional Amendment to limit the number of Reps., proposed by Hamilton. Which will probably be the first or second Bill considered in the next Assembly.

Don't. I'm working with him on a better version right now, and Hamilton will probably renounce to his Amendment as soon as we'll reach an agreement.

Yeah Antonio and I already agreed on a final version to introduce

Alright then. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 18, 2009, 04:46:10 pm
As for the tax credit, I'm pretty torn : on the one hand, this could be very helpful to restore growth, but on the other one, this will consistently reduce our breathing space, especially about helping the most disadvantaged. This was my priority during my campaign, and I don't want to be obliged to explain people that I can't keep my promises because government hasn't money anymore.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 18, 2009, 06:22:46 pm
I can't vote for $1,000, but I think I would vote for a more reasonable $400.  I'd like enough to provide a stimulus, but not too much so we break the bank.  Fiscal responsibility and prudency is one of the strengths of this region—I'd like to keep it that way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 06:23:44 pm
I can't vote for $1,000, but I think I would vote for a more reasonable $400.  I'd like enough to provide a stimulus, but not too much so we break the bank.  Fiscal responsibility and prudency is one of the strengths of this region—I'd like to keep it that way.


Maybe instead of all taxpayers we can direct the tax credit to whatever brackets are considered upper middle class and down from there.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 18, 2009, 07:30:47 pm
I can't vote for $1,000, but I think I would vote for a more reasonable $400.  I'd like enough to provide a stimulus, but not too much so we break the bank.  Fiscal responsibility and prudency is one of the strengths of this region—I'd like to keep it that way.


Maybe instead of all taxpayers we can direct the tax credit to whatever brackets are considered upper middle class and down from there.

That won't save much and would run contrary to the traditional flat tax we have in this region.  People shouldn't be penalized for making a good living - remember, this credit is only on earned, not investment income.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 07:31:27 pm
I can't vote for $1,000, but I think I would vote for a more reasonable $400.  I'd like enough to provide a stimulus, but not too much so we break the bank.  Fiscal responsibility and prudency is one of the strengths of this region—I'd like to keep it that way.


Maybe instead of all taxpayers we can direct the tax credit to whatever brackets are considered upper middle class and down from there.

That won't save much and would run contrary to the traditional flat tax we have in this region.  People shouldn't be penalized for making a good living - remember, this credit is only on earned, not investment income.

Okay, you're right. I don't support a change in this bill at all. It's perfect.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 19, 2009, 12:29:59 am
Wait... we use a flat income tax in the Northeast ?? This absolutely needs to be changed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 12:30:38 am
Wait... we use a flat income tax in the Northeast ?? This absolutely needs to be changed.

No. It's worked for us so far. We have a balanced budget.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 19, 2009, 05:27:58 am
Wait... we use a flat income tax in the Northeast ?? This absolutely needs to be changed.

No. It's worked for us so far. We have a balanced budget.

That's not the point. Flat tax is horribly unfair.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 01:10:49 pm
Wait... we use a flat income tax in the Northeast ?? This absolutely needs to be changed.

As best I can tell, we do - but the Wiki for Northeast legislation hasn't been updated since 2007.

I will accept Mr. Moderate's amendment to lower the Making Work Pay tax credit to $400 as friendly.

The bill on the floor, as amended:
1. Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit
(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $400 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 19, 2009, 01:18:32 pm
Terrific.  The bill has my full support, then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 19, 2009, 01:32:20 pm
This is also fine with me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 19, 2009, 01:42:09 pm
This is also fine with me.

Ok then


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 03:12:46 pm
I know we start a new session tomorrow, but we will continue working on the Tax Bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 03:13:47 pm
Seems like this has the support to pass. I hope we can vote on this before the next session begins.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 03:16:08 pm
I'd like to see an emergency vote take place to limit the amount of Reps. to 6. 6 is a good number.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 19, 2009, 03:18:30 pm
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 03:20:28 pm
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.

I'll take up sponsorship of the Cape Wind Resolution. Thanks for all the help getting us newer member acquainted with procedural matters. You've been a great asset to the new Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 03:23:09 pm
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if the Assembly expands to 8 members...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 03:25:32 pm
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if the Assembly expands to 8 members...

He didn't accept write-ins.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 03:25:59 pm
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if the Assembly expands to 8 members...

Well, that's why a Constitutional Amendment will be near the top of our Agenda. Hopefully, the coming Assembly is the biggest it will ever get.  And, either five or six is a good number for me. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 03:27:05 pm
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if the Assembly expands to 8 members...

Well, that's why a Constitutional Amendment will be near the top of our Agenda. Hopefully, the coming Assembly is the biggest it will ever get.  And, either five or six is a good number for me. :)


6 is better. It allows for a bit more, and we are fully capable of having six. It also allows you to have more input breaking ties :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 19, 2009, 04:04:20 pm
I'd like to see an emergency vote take place to limit the amount of Reps. to 6. 6 is a good number.

I see you never deleted your old Amendment, nor introduced the new one as you told me you would. Congratulations for pretending to pay attention about other people's opinions and then totally ignore them.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 04:05:09 pm
I'd like to see an emergency vote take place to limit the amount of Reps. to 6. 6 is a good number.

I see you never deleted your old Amendment, nor introduced the new one as you told me you would. Congratulations for pretending to pay attention about other people's opinions and then totally ignore them.

I thought you were going to introduce it! Ok I will right now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 19, 2009, 04:07:50 pm
I'd like to see an emergency vote take place to limit the amount of Reps. to 6. 6 is a good number.

I see you never deleted your old Amendment, nor introduced the new one as you told me you would. Congratulations for pretending to pay attention about other people's opinions and then totally ignore them.

I thought you were going to introduce it! Ok I will right now.

All right. The essential is not to have two different Amendments introduced on the same subject at the same time (and, partly, by the same people)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 19, 2009, 04:43:56 pm
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 04:53:01 pm
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 19, 2009, 05:02:38 pm
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 05:03:11 pm
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 19, 2009, 05:38:39 pm
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 05:39:08 pm
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.

:D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 19, 2009, 06:24:56 pm
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.

:D

Seriously, someone like Lt. Governor, Speaker of CJO should say that vote is over, votes counted and who is elected. Formality! Formaliry!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 06:26:21 pm
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.

:D

Seriously, someone like Lt. Governor, Speaker of CJO should say that vote is over, votes counted and who is elected. Formality! Formaliry!

Don't worry. We're working on it.

I'm not great at counting votes, but the Governor already said he'd do it. I'll post all of the elected representatives, as soon as I get the information. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 19, 2009, 06:34:37 pm
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.

:D

Seriously, someone like Lt. Governor, Speaker of CJO should say that vote is over, votes counted and who is elected. Formality! Formaliry!

Don't worry. We're working on it.

I'm not great at counting votes, but the Governor already said he'd do it. I'll post all of the elected representatives, as soon as I get the information. :)

Thank you. I raised this because we need to have a clear procedures (also I'm curious if shall the new assembly start tommorow if there are no officially elected Reps)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 06:37:08 pm
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.

:D

Seriously, someone like Lt. Governor, Speaker of CJO should say that vote is over, votes counted and who is elected. Formality! Formaliry!

Don't worry. We're working on it.

I'm not great at counting votes, but the Governor already said he'd do it. I'll post all of the elected representatives, as soon as I get the information. :)

Thank you. I raised this because we need to have a clear procedures (also I'm curious if shall the new assembly start tommorow if there are no officially elected Reps)

Well, the Constitution clearly states that all elected officials in the Northeast take office the Tuesday immediately following their election. So, the Assembly starts tomorrow.  I won't proceed with official business until a quorum is sworn in, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 19, 2009, 06:43:57 pm
I'll try to take an oath as soon as possible (assuming I';m reelected :P)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 06:45:43 pm
I'll try to take an oath as soon as possible (assuming I';m reelected :P)

I think you might have lost.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on October 19, 2009, 08:46:02 pm
i am taking a look at the results now and they should be ready shortly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 10:16:20 pm
Technically, all bills should be reintroduced on the proposed legislation thread for the new session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 10:18:16 pm
Technically, all bills should be reintroduced on the proposed legislation thread for the new session.

Sounds good to me. But just as an FYI, Constitutional Amendments are going near the top of consideration list. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 10:36:08 pm
Technically, all bills should be reintroduced on the proposed legislation thread for the new session.

Sounds good to me. But just as an FYI, Constitutional Amendments are going near the top of consideration list. :)

Sponsors should make sure to introduce them first, before sponsoring other legislation, then.  I will make sure the current tax bill gets back to the floor ASAP, and will be introducing Mr. Moderate's Veto Override Amendment should he not win reelection.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 10:37:57 pm
Technically, all bills should be reintroduced on the proposed legislation thread for the new session.

Sounds good to me. But just as an FYI, Constitutional Amendments are going near the top of consideration list. :)

Sponsors should make sure to introduce them first, before sponsoring other legislation, then.  I will make sure the current tax bill gets back to the floor ASAP, and will be introducing Mr. Moderate's Veto Override Amendment should he not win reelection.

OK, sounds good. But the first order of business has to be elected a Speaker. The Speaker Bill says one has to be elected a the start of each session. If no one wants to challenge Smid, it shouldn't take more than a day. If they do, that's a different story. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 10:40:03 pm
If I am re-elected, I will run should Smid not seek another term as Speaker. However, if he does, I will gladly and proudly support him for the position.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 10:42:50 pm
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 10:44:14 pm
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

Why wouldn't the election determine the other two new members?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 10:44:19 pm
Not if we decrease the Assembly size. In the meantime, FallenMorgan would be a good appointee to the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 10:44:41 pm
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

Why wouldn't the election determine the other two new members?

They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 10:48:39 pm
They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.

Dr. Cynic voted for himself, which I thought was the equivalent of accepting write-ins.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 10:51:22 pm
They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.

Dr. Cynic voted for himself, which I thought was the equivalent of accepting write-ins.

I'm not sure if we have that rule. We could. And I'm not sure if those who don't meet quota are rejected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 11:20:45 pm
They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.

Dr. Cynic voted for himself, which I thought was the equivalent of accepting write-ins.

I'm not sure if we have that rule. We could. And I'm not sure if those who don't meet quota are rejected.

I'm not even sure we have an acceptance of write-ins rule - that's a federal thing. Article V, Section v of the New Northeast Constitution only says "Candidates for the Legislative Assembly will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her's candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread. "    It says nothing about write-ins.  

The old Northeastern Voting Regulations (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeastern_Voting_Regulations) only says "In order to be listed on the ballot, a candidate must have announced an intention to run 7 days before the day appointed for the election to begin. If the candidate has not announced an intention before this deadline and wishes to run, that citizen should have write in candidacy status. " - but that pre-New Northeast Constitution law arguably only applies to the Governor's race and is probably superseded by the New Northeast Constitution.

The law requiring acceptance of write-in votes is a federal one, not a Northeastern one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 11:22:20 pm
They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.

Dr. Cynic voted for himself, which I thought was the equivalent of accepting write-ins.

I'm not sure if we have that rule. We could. And I'm not sure if those who don't meet quota are rejected.

I'm not even sure we have an acceptance of write-ins rule - that's a federal thing. Article V, Section v of the New Northeast Constitution only says "Candidates for the Legislative Assembly will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her's candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread. "    It says nothing about write-ins.  

The old Northeastern Voting Regulations (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeastern_Voting_Regulations) only says "In order to be listed on the ballot, a candidate must have announced an intention to run 7 days before the day appointed for the election to begin. If the candidate has not announced an intention before this deadline and wishes to run, that citizen should have write in candidacy status. " - but that pre-New Northeast Constitution law arguably only applies to the Governor's race and is probably superseded by the New Northeast Constitution.

The law requiring acceptance of write-in votes is a federal one, not a Northeastern one.


In that case, we should work on amending this to resolve this confusion. Write-ins should have to be accepted.

And what about quota issues? I don't think they are addressed either.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 11:29:45 pm
In that case, we should work on amending this to resolve this confusion. Write-ins should have to be accepted.

And what about quota issues? I don't think they are addressed either.

Quota issues meaning what?  Tallying of votes? The New Northeast Constitution expressly adopted Sections 4-17 of the federal Proportional Representation Act (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Proportional_Representation_Act), unless this Assembly decides otherwise.

Note that we didn't adopt Section 3 of the PRA, which would have adopted the federal write-in rules through the back door.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: 🍁 Hatman on October 19, 2009, 11:46:42 pm
it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 11:49:06 pm
it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.

Votes for themselves?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: 🍁 Hatman on October 19, 2009, 11:50:51 pm
it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.

Votes for themselves?

Yeah


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 11:59:31 pm
it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.

Votes for themselves?

Yeah

Well Dr. Cynic did that.  Connor Flynn/Montag may have if Rocky is for some unknown reason (to me) him.  Mr. Moderate did not.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 12:00:20 am
it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.

Votes for themselves?

Yeah

Well Dr. Cynic did that.  Connor Flynn/Montag may have if Rocky is for some unknown reason him.  Mr. Moderate did not.

Conor Flynn/Montag/Rocky/Rockefeller Republican is all the same person.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 20, 2009, 10:23:00 am
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

So there are 3 ProCons, 2 JCP-ers and, now, 1 LFN?



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 20, 2009, 12:10:12 pm
Why would Dr. Cynic and Rocky Republican not be the seventh and eighth members, respectively?  Why does the Governor get to appoint, even though the public just voted?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on October 20, 2009, 12:32:08 pm
If the size of the assembly were to add 2 additional members by the time of the election, they would be elected to it if they stated that they are accepting write in votes. I could easily just appoint the two of them if they are still interested. They just need to let me know.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 20, 2009, 12:56:53 pm
We don't need to appoint two members, but just to make work normal electoral proceedings : Dr Cynic and Conor Flynn are elected since they both accepted write-ins.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 20, 2009, 01:50:12 pm
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

So there are 3 ProCons, 2 JCP-ers and, now, 1 LFN?



I'm an independent.  It's 2/2/1/1, pending the election of Dr. Cynic and Conor Flynn.  If those two are deemed elected, the composition should be 2 PCP, 2 JCP, 2 LFN (+Dr. Cynic), 1 DA (+ Conor/Rocky/Montag/whatever he's calling himself these days) and 1 independent.

The composition of the first Assembly at the time of nomination was 2 PCP, 2 JCP, 2 independents.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 20, 2009, 01:52:51 pm
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

So there are 3 ProCons, 2 JCP-ers and, now, 1 LFN?



I'm an independent.  It's 2/2/1/1, pending the election of Dr. Cynic and Conor Flynn.  If those two are deemed elected, the composition should be 2 PCP, 2 JCP, 2 LFN (+Dr. Cynic), 1 DA (+ Conor/Rocky/Montag/whatever he's calling himself these days) and 1 independent.

The composition of the first Assembly at the time of nomination was 2 PCP, 2 JCP, 2 independents.

Nice to see how balaced the composition is.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 20, 2009, 06:41:23 pm
Since most of elected (if not all) Representatives took an oath, I believe that we're now on the session.

If so (of course correct me if I'm wrong :)), we should proceed with election of Speaker for the current term. From my side I'd like to say, if Smid is going to run again, I shall suport him. Otherwise, I'm considering running for speaker myself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 06:43:30 pm
If I am re-elected, I will run should Smid not seek another term as Speaker. However, if he does, I will gladly and proudly support him for the position.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 20, 2009, 06:44:41 pm
Since most of elected (if not all) Representatives took an oath, I believe that we're now on the session.

If so (of course correct me if I'm wrong :)), we should proceed with election of Speaker for the current term. From my side I'd like to say, if Smid is going to run again, I shall suport him. Otherwise, I'm considering running for speaker myself.

Has it been determined if the 7th and 8th seats were elected, or if the Governor has to appoint them?

And, yes, the Speakership election will be the first order of business. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 06:48:01 pm
Since most of elected (if not all) Representatives took an oath, I believe that we're now on the session.

If so (of course correct me if I'm wrong :)), we should proceed with election of Speaker for the current term. From my side I'd like to say, if Smid is going to run again, I shall suport him. Otherwise, I'm considering running for speaker myself.

Has it been determined if the 7th and 8th seats were elected, or if the Governor has to appoint them?

And, yes, the Speakership election will be the first oder of business. :)

They were elected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 20, 2009, 07:01:06 pm
Since most of elected (if not all) Representatives took an oath, I believe that we're now on the session.

If so (of course correct me if I'm wrong :)), we should proceed with election of Speaker for the current term. From my side I'd like to say, if Smid is going to run again, I shall suport him. Otherwise, I'm considering running for speaker myself.

Has it been determined if the 7th and 8th seats were elected, or if the Governor has to appoint them?

And, yes, the Speakership election will be the first oder of business. :)

They were elected.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so.  The Governor has not issued any new certification.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 07:03:19 pm
Since most of elected (if not all) Representatives took an oath, I believe that we're now on the session.

If so (of course correct me if I'm wrong :)), we should proceed with election of Speaker for the current term. From my side I'd like to say, if Smid is going to run again, I shall suport him. Otherwise, I'm considering running for speaker myself.

Has it been determined if the 7th and 8th seats were elected, or if the Governor has to appoint them?

And, yes, the Speakership election will be the first oder of business. :)

They were elected.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so.  The Governor has not issued any new certification.

They were the 7th and 8th vote getters, so I don't see how they aren't elected based on recent evidence of write-in rules.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 20, 2009, 07:05:52 pm
Quote from: Atlasia's new Machiavelli (LNF-MA)
They were the 7th and 8th vote getters, so I don't see how they aren't elected based on recent evidence of write-in rules.

Nor do I, but the Governor, as agent for the CJO, has certified nothing of the sort. We need a certification first.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 10:58:16 pm
Actually, the large Assembly could be cool as long as we can find more candidates next time. The Committee idea will work better this way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 20, 2009, 11:03:47 pm
Congratulations to Reps. Dr. Cynic, Conor/Rocky/Montag/whatever he's calling himself today and fezzyfestoon.

Let's get to work.  I nominate Smid for Assembly Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 20, 2009, 11:06:00 pm
Actually, being chosen to join you all was rather a shock to me. I wrote my own name in because I could not think of another person at that time. Having others write me in was surprising when I learned it. So much so, I didn't believe our President when he informed me.

In any case, I'm glad to be here and am anxious to get to business.

I'd like to second the nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 11:06:49 pm
I will third the re-nomination of Speaker Smid.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 21, 2009, 12:05:05 am
After electing a Speaker, I would advise this body: a) pass some sort of tax cuts and then b) focus solely on amendments to fix the mess that is the Northeast Constitution.

Small, region-oriented legislation can wait. It is most important to create some sort of stability and legal structure that the region can abide by to avoid confusion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 21, 2009, 08:47:23 am
Fellow Representatives,
For the new session beginning, I've decided to run for he office of Speaker of the Assembly. I have absolutely nothing against Smid, for which I have a lot of respect, and who certainly did a good job last session. However, as I promised during my campaign, I find necessary to make the delays the shortest possible for vote openings and closures. We have an enourmous amout of bills that need to be discussed and put on vote before the end of the session, and I would like to help making this assembly work faster and better. As soon as elected, I will start with opening the vote on Tax Credit Act.


Actually, being chosen to join you all was rather a shock to me. I wrote my own name in because I could not think of another person at that time. Having others write me in was surprising when I learned it. So much so, I didn't believe our President when he informed me.

Yeah, you seemed to be a pretty good choice. Congratulations and good luck for your new office. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 21, 2009, 06:35:21 pm
Well, I know Smid hasn't sworn himself in yet, but I think it's safe to start business.

I hereby open up a vote for Speaker. (Only vote for one)

[ ] Rep. AntonioV
[ ] Rep. Smid



Voting lasts twenty-four hours



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 21, 2009, 07:02:42 pm
  • Rep. Smid


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 21, 2009, 07:05:08 pm
  • Rep. AntonioV
[ ] Rep. Smid


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 21, 2009, 11:40:48 pm


[X] Rep. AntonioV
[ ] Rep. Smid


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on October 22, 2009, 08:36:07 am
Smid


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 22, 2009, 11:29:49 am
[X] Rep. AntonioV
[ ] Rep. Smid


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 22, 2009, 05:43:15 pm
Smid.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 22, 2009, 09:20:40 pm
I just want to say, that despite changing party affilation neither my views or legislative priorities changed


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 22, 2009, 09:24:17 pm
The Final Vote for the Speaker election are as follows:

Smid: Three Votes (cinyc, fezzyfestoon, Smid)
AntonioV: Three Votes (Kalwejt, Doctor Cynic, AntonioV)
No Votes: Two (Hamilton, Montag)

Yea! A Tie! I believe my Constitutional power applies to breaking ties for elections to positions. I'll be announcing my choice very soon (maximum of an hour).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 22, 2009, 09:29:44 pm
The Final Vote for the Speaker election are as follows:

Smid: Three Votes (cinyc, fezzyfestoon, Smid)
AntonioV: Three Votes (Kalwejt, Doctor Cynic, AntonioV)
No Votes: Two (Hamilton, Montag)

Yea! A Tie! I believe my Constitutional power applies to breaking ties for elections to positions. I'll be announcing my choice very soon (maximum of an hour).

First tie-breaking vote to be cast

You're making history :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 22, 2009, 09:31:31 pm
This was a really difficult decision. I planned on not voting at all. That would have been cowardly of me. My vote is for Smid. That is not to say I do not think Antonio qualified, and I'd likely support him next time he runs, but Smid has not even served a full term yet and he has some good ideas that I think we should try before switching our mode of operation so early into the Assembly. I hope no one is angry and Smid, you have my full confidence.

Thanks, Hamilton

Yeah, I'm not too keen on supporting that party, but Smid has made it clear that he is better than the group as a whole. I can't take anything out on a good guy like Smid. Sorry Antonio. You'll get a chance, though, I promise.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 22, 2009, 09:34:39 pm
I'll 100% for Antonio

He's really put a lot in creation of the Assembly and deserved this honor

This is a time for new generation


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 22, 2009, 09:37:31 pm
This was a really difficult decision. I planned on not voting at all. That would have been cowardly of me. My vote is for Smid. That is not to say I do not think Antonio qualified, and I'd likely support him next time he runs, but Smid has not even served a full term yet and he has some good ideas that I think we should try before switching our mode of operation so early into the Assembly. I hope no one is angry and Smid, you have my full confidence.

Thanks, Hamilton

Yeah, I'm not too keen on supporting that party, but Smid has made it clear that he is better than the group as a whole. I can't take anything out on a good guy like Smid. Sorry Antonio. You'll get a chance, though, I promise.

I'm sorry, but your vote doesn't count since, it was cast after voting closed. :(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 22, 2009, 09:39:11 pm
This was a really difficult decision. I planned on not voting at all. That would have been cowardly of me. My vote is for Smid. That is not to say I do not think Antonio qualified, and I'd likely support him next time he runs, but Smid has not even served a full term yet and he has some good ideas that I think we should try before switching our mode of operation so early into the Assembly. I hope no one is angry and Smid, you have my full confidence.

Thanks, Hamilton

Yeah, I'm not too keen on supporting that party, but Smid has made it clear that he is better than the group as a whole. I can't take anything out on a good guy like Smid. Sorry Antonio. You'll get a chance, though, I promise.

I'm sorry, but your vote doesn't count since, it was cast after voting closed. :(

Well, now you know how to break the tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 22, 2009, 10:20:54 pm
I break the tie in favor of Smid. This was a difficult decision, and, no, Hamilton, it's not because of your campaign for Smid. ;)

Antonio, this has nothing against you, I promise. I just believe that we still need an abundance of experience in dealing with parliamentary procedure. :) (I'll make it up to you, I promise, maybe a Committee Chairmanship!) :D

So, anyway, Smid is hereby elected Speaker of this Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 22, 2009, 10:40:20 pm
I mentioned to someone a couple of days back that I won't be running for Speaker in the next assembly, in order to give someone else the chance to perform the role.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 22, 2009, 11:10:31 pm
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009
Three sections shall be added to the Northeast Tax Code as follows:

1. Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit
(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $400 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 22, 2009, 11:18:26 pm
Thank you, Mr. Lieutenant Governor.

This bill was being debated when the last Assembly adjourned sine die.  Former Rep. Mr. Moderate's proposed amendment to lower the amount of the Making Work Pay Tax Credit to $400 is included in the version I've brought to the floor in this new Assembly.

For our new Representatives, my statement explaining this bill is way back on Page 14 here (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2181104#msg2181104).

Given that we've started debate on the bill twice before, I move that we dispense with the normal 48-hour debate period and proceed to a vote on the bill.

If any new Representatives have concerns about or proposed amendments to the bill in the interim, please let me know during the 24-hour voting period for the motion to proceed to a vote.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 22, 2009, 11:20:31 pm
I second the motion that the Bill be now put.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 22, 2009, 11:24:19 pm

I move that we dispense with the normal 48-hour debate period and proceed to a vote on the bill.


I bring this to a vote. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Voting lasts twenty-four hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 22, 2009, 11:26:46 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 22, 2009, 11:28:34 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 22, 2009, 11:50:38 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 23, 2009, 12:32:52 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on October 23, 2009, 01:14:00 am
FTR, support the re-nomination of Smid for Speaker of the House.

AYE

Despite the conformity I support the bill sponsored by fellow Representative Cynic.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 23, 2009, 09:36:27 am
Aye.

I mentioned to someone a couple of days back that I won't be running for Speaker in the next assembly, in order to give someone else the chance to perform the role.

Thanks. Sorry for challenging you, but one-candidate elections aren't fun. Anyways, Barnes took the right decision. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on October 23, 2009, 10:17:42 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 23, 2009, 01:33:42 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 23, 2009, 01:40:01 pm
Nice to see we have an unanimity. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 23, 2009, 02:54:41 pm
The Motion has passed unanimously.

I open up a final vote on this. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009
Three sections shall be added to the Northeast Tax Code as follows:

1. Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit
(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $400 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 23, 2009, 03:52:29 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 24, 2009, 12:35:02 am
*yawn*

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 24, 2009, 12:46:42 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 24, 2009, 05:40:02 am
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 24, 2009, 05:40:03 am
Aye!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 24, 2009, 01:39:24 pm
Bump - for our other representatives to vote on final passage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 24, 2009, 01:42:37 pm
It's tough when one of them is on mod review constantly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 24, 2009, 04:31:25 pm
It's tough when one of them is on mod review constantly.

See, he's not

Stop dreaming.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 24, 2009, 05:01:41 pm
What the hell do the other 4 do ?!?
Eight is really too much...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 24, 2009, 05:06:44 pm
What the hell do the other 4 do ?!?
Eight is really too much...

Well, five Reps would be enough, but law cannot act retrospectivaly


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 24, 2009, 05:09:31 pm
What the hell do the other 4 do ?!?
Eight is really too much...

Well, five Reps would be enough, but law cannot act retrospectivaly

I prefer six, personally.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 24, 2009, 05:10:52 pm
What the hell do the other 4 do ?!?
Eight is really too much...

Well, five Reps would be enough, but law cannot act retrospectivaly

The Amendment sponsored by Hamilton and I will try to deal with that, so that in decemer we will have a more competitive election and a better working Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 24, 2009, 07:49:35 pm
What the hell do the other 4 do ?!?
Eight is really too much...

Well, five Reps would be enough, but law cannot act retrospectivaly

The Amendment sponsored by Hamilton and I will try to deal with that, so that in decemer we will have a more competitive election and a better working Assembly.

FYI - I'm going to temporarily table the veto override amendment so that we can deal with the size of the Assembly amendment first.  It doesn't make sense to set an override level until we've set the size of the Assembly.  In a fixed 6-member Assembly, 2/3rds IS a majority (4/6 - unless the LT Governor breaks a tie).  Not so in a 5, 7 or 8-member Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 24, 2009, 10:03:54 pm
With Four Ayes, Zero Nays, and Zero Abstentions, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009 has passed. I hereby present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 24, 2009, 10:43:17 pm
Aye, ftr.

As I've stated. My internet will be limited until Wednesday.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 24, 2009, 11:01:52 pm
Mr. Lt. Governor -

As I stated previously, I ask that you temporarily table the Veto Override Amendment so that we can address amendments dealing with the number of Assembly seats first.  I ask that you bring the Vero Override Amendment to the floor after we vote on the number of Representatives this body should have.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 24, 2009, 11:05:55 pm
Seats Number Amendment

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is amended as follows :
2. The number of Reps to be elected corresponds to the integer of the number [(V/5)+0.5], with V being the number of northeast citizens who actually vote to elect said Reps. The number of Reps shall be comprised between 2 and 10 notwithstanding what precedes.

Sponsor: Rep. AntonioV

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative AntonioV, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 25, 2009, 03:43:23 am
Well, I have to indicate that Hamilton and I are co-sponsor of this Amendment. :)

Here is the point : The unsteadiness between the number of seats and the number of real voters is a main reason for the current excessive number of reps. Linking it to the number of actual voters would drastically reduce them (for instance, even with 32 voters, we'd still have only 6 reps), but keeping a link between the number of active citizens and the number of their Representatives.


Aye, obviously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 25, 2009, 09:04:58 am
Thanks to both of you for crafting this amendment

Aye :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 25, 2009, 09:25:07 am
Thanks to both of you for crafting this amendment

Aye :)

We're not holding a vote on this right now, we're debating the Amendment. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 25, 2009, 09:32:21 am
Thanks to both of you for crafting this amendment

Aye :)

We're not holding a vote on this right now, we're debating the Amendment. :)

Oh, ok :)

I support the amendment for two reasons I'd like to put before you

First of all, we simply don't need so large Assembly.

Second of all, this would make futher elections more competentive and thus revitalize our political life and participation in the process.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 25, 2009, 11:16:08 am
Basically, what Antonio said sums it up :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 25, 2009, 01:06:30 pm
Well, no we just need to wait for 48 long hours of so-called "debate"... Proceedings are so boring !

Anyways, the main problem with this is that it's an Amendment, and Amendments need to be voted by the citizens after passing in the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 25, 2009, 01:15:42 pm
Well, no we just need to wait for 48 long hours... Proceedings are so boring !

Well, actually, debate lasts 72 hours:
Quote
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.

Of course, a Rep. can propose to suspend that section, although I advise a healthy amount of debate before voting on Amendments. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 25, 2009, 02:47:45 pm
Well, no we just need to wait for 48 long hours... Proceedings are so boring !

Well, actually, debate lasts 72 hours:
Quote
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.

Of course, a Rep. can propose to suspend that section, although I advise a healthy amount of debate before voting on Amendments. :)


We lowered that to 48 hours in Mr. Moderate's amendment to the SOAP>

Here's what I don't understand: why aren't we just fixing the number of Representatives at a number - 5 or 6 - instead of making things variable again?  Isn't it simpler to vote for a known number of seats?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 25, 2009, 10:46:45 pm
Here's what I don't understand: why aren't we just fixing the number of Representatives at a number - 5 or 6 - instead of making things variable again?  Isn't it simpler to vote for a known number of seats?

It's simpler to calculate a set number of seats in advance. That said, I've been running the numbers in Excel for this. For the turnout range of V = 24 to V = 500 (so for virtually any turnout we'd expect, except in low-turnout races where fewer than 24 voters cast a ballot), the Quota will always be between five and six votes. I figured this would be the case because although my maths isn't great, we were putting the number of votes in both the numerator and the denominator of the formula to calculate the quota. It is perhaps, therefore simpler to amend this Amendment to read that the quota required to be elected shall be five votes. This will have virtually the same affect (in some races, it may elect an additional candidate because of strange preference flows and a large fraction of a vote left over) but won't change the competitive nature of the election substantially (while maintaining the benefit of simplifying the math involved in calculating the election results). If you're better than me at simplifying equations, the formula looks something like:

Q = (V/(n+1))+1
n = (V/5)+0.5

where: V = Number of Votes cast
            n = Number of Representatives elected
            Q = Quota required to be elected.

Substituting the formula for n into the first equation, we come up with

Q = ((V/((V/5)+0.5)+1))+1
or:

Q = (V/(0.2V) + 0.5) + 1

Anyway, it's not too hard to put the numbers into a spreadsheet and then graph the results... it only takes three columns.

The first column is V, the second column is n and the third column is Q. Obviously there's a header row to have each of those. In cell A2, you can enter "1" and in A3, etc, "2" (or "=A2+1" or just Fill Series). In cell B2, you can enter "=INT((A2/5)+0.5)" and you can copy and paste for all cells in column B. In cell C2, you can enter "=(A2/(B2+1))+1" and copy and paste for all cells in column C. You can chart the results if you wish.

For the last election, with 32 voters, we would have elected 6 representatives and each would have required 5.571429 votes to be elected. I could re-calculate the elections results, but I don't think we'd have any surprises.

Obviously all this ignores the "Maximum 10 Representatives" element of the Amendment, but by setting a fixed quota and ignoring this maximum, the size of the Assembly will grow slowly as the number of citizens increases (at a rate of one new representative for every five new voters) allowing us to continue holding competitive elections.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 25, 2009, 11:14:15 pm
My friends, I'm afraid I'm not the best with numbers. I think basically a simple solution would be one Assembly member for every ten registered citizens... Which would go about five for the next assembly. Wouldn't it make it a hell of a lot more simplified that way?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on October 25, 2009, 11:23:36 pm
I concur with fellow Representative Cynic in this latest debate. Not only as I deem it far more simplistic but we must brace ourselves for an onslaught of a lack of voter activity, something I and other Northeasterners have witnessed in the past. Although the Northeast is a hub of activity at the present, such action is bound to conclude at some stage. And I believe upon the ratification of the Strategic Registration Amendment that process will be as inevitable as the failure of New Coke in 1985.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 26, 2009, 03:49:26 am
I really hold to keeping a link between votes and number of reps. This is the fairest way to ensure that NE active citizens will be decently represented. I think it would make no sense to have, for example, 6 member with 12 voters, or 3 members with 30 voters.
The number of representatives we need is intrinsically linked with the number of voters. My only mistake was not to understand this when I wrote the CRA.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 26, 2009, 07:44:42 am
My friends, I'm afraid I'm not the best with numbers. I think basically a simple solution would be one Assembly member for every ten registered citizens... Which would go about five for the next assembly. Wouldn't it make it a hell of a lot more simplified that way?

Since I'm horrible with numbers, it sound very reasonable


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 26, 2009, 08:00:11 am
I know I'm no longer an Assemblyman, but I'm going to use the privilege usually extended former members to access the floor.

Guys: This past regional election was a confused clusterfuck.  No one knew how many seats were up for election until after the election. That's inexcusable.  Set it at 6 (or 5, which is probably even better) and just lock the number in.  There's no need for formulas.

If five/six proves too high due to later inactivity, you can revisit the issue.

But please.  Make it a permanent-sized body.  There's no reason to make this miserably complicated for no reason other than someone's desire to see things get miserably complicated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 26, 2009, 08:06:40 am
I know I'm no longer an Assemblyman, but I'm going to use the privilege usually extended former members to access the floor.

Guys: This past regional election was a confused clusterfuck.  No one knew how many seats were up for election until after the election. That's inexcusable.  Set it at 6 (or 5, which is probably even better) and just lock the number in.  There's no need for formulas.

If five/six proves too high due to later inactivity, you can revisit the issue.

But please.  Make it a permanent-sized body.  There's no reason to make this miserably complicated for no reason other than someone's desire to see things get miserably complicated.

Hm, why not? That's good point as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 26, 2009, 08:24:47 am
There's no reason to make this miserably complicated for no reason other than someone's desire to see things get miserably complicated.

I'm sorry to see once again I'm fighting against everybody. The simplest solution isn't always the better, and people really need to think about every eventuality before peremptorily claiming : "Let's make so, it's simpler !".


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 02:21:12 pm
Given the interest in setting the number of representatives at a fixed number, I'm going to formally offer an amendment to the Seats Number Amendment, which I assume will be deemed unfriendly and put to a vote:

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is deleted and replaced with the following:
2. Five Reps shall be elected.


Fixing the number of seats makes sense.  In the last election, because few Northeast citizens seemed to know how many Representatives were going to be elected, we were told to rank at least 6 choices, even though there were 8 open seats.  The result was an uncompetitive election.  Some Representatives were surprised that they had even won.  

The current formula is too complex for a simple game - and I don't think a formula tying seats to votes would be better.  No one would know how many Reps we have until AFTER the election - so no one would know how many folks they needed to vote for.  It also potentially invites fraud - getting more zombies to vote so that your seat is ensured.

I may lose my seat as a result of setting the Assembly at 5, but it's the right thing to do.  It makes more sense than setting the size at six because ties are less likely.  And it makes a 2/3rds override in the next Amendment to be brought to the floor mean something, since you'd need 4 our of 5 to support an override.  With an Assembly of 6, 2/3rds is the same as a simple majority - 4 out of 6.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 26, 2009, 02:29:59 pm
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 26, 2009, 02:37:33 pm
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.

It's not that it's too complex, it's that it's too unstable.  A legislative body needs some modicum of stability—people need to have a basic concept of how it works.  No one knew what the heck was going on after the last election, and that's a problem.

If you REALLY want the size of the Assembly tied to the size of the active population, allow for a periodic redistricting, say, twice a year.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 26, 2009, 03:26:11 pm
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.

It's not that it's too complex, it's that it's too unstable.  A legislative body needs some modicum of stability—people need to have a basic concept of how it works.  No one knew what the heck was going on after the last election, and that's a problem.

If you REALLY want the size of the Assembly tied to the size of the active population, allow for a periodic redistricting, say, twice a year.

Ok, I guess I'm not in position to impose my views.

Here is my proposal :


1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is amended as follows :
2. Five Reps shall be elected. This provision can be amended by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 26, 2009, 03:27:16 pm
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.

It's not that it's too complex, it's that it's too unstable.  A legislative body needs some modicum of stability—people need to have a basic concept of how it works.  No one knew what the heck was going on after the last election, and that's a problem.

If you REALLY want the size of the Assembly tied to the size of the active population, allow for a periodic redistricting, say, twice a year.

Ok, I guess I'm not in position to impose my views.

Here is my proposal :


1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is amended as follows :
2. Five Reps shall be elected. This provision can be amended by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

I know this may sound stupid, since you proposed it, but is this friendly? :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 26, 2009, 03:30:04 pm
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.

It's not that it's too complex, it's that it's too unstable.  A legislative body needs some modicum of stability—people need to have a basic concept of how it works.  No one knew what the heck was going on after the last election, and that's a problem.

If you REALLY want the size of the Assembly tied to the size of the active population, allow for a periodic redistricting, say, twice a year.

Ok, I guess I'm not in position to impose my views.

Here is my proposal :


1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is amended as follows :
2. Five Reps shall be elected. This provision can be amended by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

I know this may sound stupid, since you proposed it, but is this friendly? :)

On behalf of Rep. Hamilton I have to communicate he'd accept this as a friendly only with 6 members


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 26, 2009, 05:23:18 pm
Article V, Section 7 of the Constitution is amended as follows:
The number of Representatives shall be set by statute.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 05:40:16 pm
Article V, Section 7 of the Constitution is amended as follows:
The number of Representatives shall be set by statute.

Well, we'd need a statute for the next election for that to work - but that formulation may be workable.

As a (hopefully friendly) amendment, I think "is amended as follows:" should be replaced by "is deleted and replaced by the following:" in EVERY formulation of the Seats Number Amendment - to make clear that we're getting rid of the old constitutional language.  Otherwise "is amended" could mean that we just add whatever we pass it to the end of Article V, Section vii).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 26, 2009, 05:41:04 pm
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.

It's not that it's too complex, it's that it's too unstable.  A legislative body needs some modicum of stability—people need to have a basic concept of how it works.  No one knew what the heck was going on after the last election, and that's a problem.

If you REALLY want the size of the Assembly tied to the size of the active population, allow for a periodic redistricting, say, twice a year.

Ok, I guess I'm not in position to impose my views.

Here is my proposal :


1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is amended as follows :
2. Five Reps shall be elected. This provision can be amended by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

I know this may sound stupid, since you proposed it, but is this friendly? :)

On behalf of Rep. Hamilton I have to communicate he'd accept this as a friendly only with 6 members

Yep, I support this.

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected. This provision can be modified by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 05:45:47 pm
The main problem I have with 6 seats is that it creates the likelihood of more ties and creates a problem for veto overrides since 2/3rds is the same as a majority, assuming all Reps vote. 

If we do go with 6 seats (or make it variable) I think we're going to have to peg veto overrides at "more than two-thirds" rather than "two-thirds".  That's the main reason I delayed the vote on the Veto Override Amendment until after we settled the Seats issue.

Can I ask other Assemblymen whether they'd prefer an Assembly of 5 or 6?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 26, 2009, 06:02:16 pm
Technically, if exactly 2/3 of the reps vote for veto override, this shall be considered as a tie and therefore the Lt Gov would have to break it. This is quite simple.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 26, 2009, 06:09:06 pm
I'm divided between 5 and 6


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 06:20:02 pm
Technically, if exactly 2/3 of the reps vote for veto override, this shall be considered as a tie and therefore the Lt Gov would have to break it. This is quite simple.

The proposed amendment says "by a two-thirds majority vote" - which means a vote of 4 out of 6 should be sufficient to override.  The Lt. Governor shouldn't be involved in veto overrides - there should be no ties.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 26, 2009, 06:23:50 pm
People need to be decently represented, and more reps we have, better it is. Plus, I don't want us to copy Mideast. :P


Technically, if exactly 2/3 of the reps vote for veto override, this shall be considered as a tie and therefore the Lt Gov would have to break it. This is quite simple.

The proposed amendment says "by a two-thirds majority vote" - which means a vote of 4 out of 6 should be sufficient to override.  The Lt. Governor shouldn't be involved in veto overrides - there should be no ties.

In this case, we've no constitutional problems. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 26, 2009, 06:25:16 pm
It's not personal, Barnes, but I believe Lieutenant Governor should not be a presidig officer.

It's not good to perform at once executive and legislative duties.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 26, 2009, 06:30:24 pm
The Lieutenant Governor is an unnecessary position.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 26, 2009, 06:35:44 pm
The Lieutenant Governor is an unnecessary position.

No


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 26, 2009, 06:45:37 pm
It's not personal, Barnes, but I believe Lieutenant Governor should not be a presidig officer.

It's not good to perform at once executive and legislative duties.

Well, since the Lt Gove has not any other important task, I think to the contrary that it's a good thing. :) Many democracies do this, and it doesn't absolutely harm the Assembly's freedom.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 26, 2009, 06:47:06 pm
It's not personal, Barnes, but I believe Lieutenant Governor should not be a presidig officer.

It's not good to perform at once executive and legislative duties.

Well, since the Lt Gove has not any other important task, I think to the contrary that it's a good thing. :) Many democracies do this, and it doesn't absolutely harm the Assembly's freedom.

Lieutenant Governor should be assigned with some executive duties, not beig just "a guy heartbet away"


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 26, 2009, 07:30:58 pm
The Lieutenant Governor is an unnecessary position.

No

Have you anything to say, or are all your ideas summed up in one word like this?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 26, 2009, 07:36:35 pm
The Lieutenant Governor is an unnecessary position.

No

Have you anything to say, or are all your ideas summed up in one word like this?

I already wrote what I think about a role of lt. gov and what should it be

Please, learn to read the whole thread beforfe you start to mess with Assembly again

Thank you, sir :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 26, 2009, 08:09:01 pm
The Lieutenant Governor is an unnecessary position.

No

Have you anything to say, or are all your ideas summed up in one word like this?

I already wrote what I think about a role of lt. gov and what should it be

Please, learn to read the whole thread beforfe you start to mess with Assembly again

Thank you, sir :P

I don't recall that post. Could you quote it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 26, 2009, 08:19:47 pm
It's not personal, Barnes, but I believe Lieutenant Governor should not be a presidig officer.

It's not good to perform at once executive and legislative duties.

Well, since the Lt Gove has not any other important task, I think to the contrary that it's a good thing. :) Many democracies do this, and it doesn't absolutely harm the Assembly's freedom.

Lieutenant Governor should be assigned with some executive duties, not beig just "a guy heartbet away"

It's not personal, Barnes, but I believe Lieutenant Governor should not be a presidig officer.

It's not good to perform at once executive and legislative duties.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 26, 2009, 09:05:46 pm
You haven't explained why the Lieutenant Governorship should exist. The Mideast did away with theirs for a reason.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 26, 2009, 09:07:17 pm
The Lt. Gov is supposed to be the person who puts passed legislation up on the Wiki.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 26, 2009, 09:35:35 pm
The Lt. Gov is supposed to be the person who puts passed legislation up on the Wiki.

wiki is in horrible condition


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 09:45:49 pm
Yep, I support this.

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected. This provision can be modified by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

Would it make more sense to define when the provision can be modified by law by legislative session (i.e. "during the Legislative Assembly sessions starting in December and June") instead of a particular month (or perhaps not at all, per Xahar's suggestion)? 

Under the proposal, what if we pass something on January 30, the Governor vetoes it, and we can't override until February?  Is it still valid?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 26, 2009, 10:01:35 pm
The Lt. Gov is supposed to be the person who puts passed legislation up on the Wiki.

wiki is in horrible condition

Conor started putting stuff on the Wiki, but I think he just gave up.  I don't think we've had an LG work on the Wiki since then, and that was 2008.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 26, 2009, 10:02:17 pm
Yep, I support this.

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected. This provision can be modified by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

Since there's no enough supoport for the 5 Reps and we need to lower the size, I shall support this as well


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 26, 2009, 10:31:29 pm
Yep, I support this.

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected. This provision can be modified by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

Since there's no enough supoport for the 5 Reps and we need to lower the size, I shall support this as well

I will support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 26, 2009, 11:28:57 pm
I think we should get rid of the "modified in January and July" element of the Bill and let the Legislature amend the Act at any time it sees the need, just like any other piece of legislation. If there's no need/support to change it, then it won't be changed and if there is a need/support for changes, then it should be changed regardless of what month it is.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 11:47:44 pm
I think we should get rid of the "modified in January and July" element of the Bill and let the Legislature amend the Act at any time it sees the need, just like any other piece of legislation. If there's no need/support to change it, then it won't be changed and if there is a need/support for changes, then it should be changed regardless of what month it is.

So something like "Six Reps shall be elected, unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law. " (which parallels the language in Article V, Section viii)?

I probably can live with that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on October 26, 2009, 11:55:47 pm
The Lt. Gov is supposed to be the person who puts passed legislation up on the Wiki.

wiki is in horrible condition

Conor started putting stuff on the Wiki, but I think he just gave up.  I don't think we've had an LG work on the Wiki since then, and that was 2008.

Indeed that is correct Moderate, it was simply too much to do.

As for the latest amendment, this Representative is highly supportive of it. Although its not what Representative Antonio originally intended, it is, in my opinion a much more realistic approach to the issue of seats this grand Assembly shall have in accordance to the Northeast's voters. Motion to vote Mr. Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 27, 2009, 12:08:07 am
Indeed that is correct Moderate, it was simply too much to do.

As for the latest amendment, this Representative is highly supportive of it. Although its not what Representative Antonio originally intended, it is, in my opinion a much more realistic approach to the issue of seats this grand Assembly shall have in accordance to the Northeast's voters. Motion to vote Mr. Speaker.

Let's see if Antonio V will take this proposal as friendly first:
1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected, unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.

If so, I'll table my unfriendly amendment to set the Assembly at 5 members, which should allow us to proceed directly to a vote on the proposal.

Note that since this is a Constitutional Amendment, a two-thirds vote is necessary to pass instead of a mere majority of those who have voted (and I think we also need at least 5 of our 8 members to vote for it, as I read Article VII, Section i).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 27, 2009, 12:45:57 am
If Antonio doesn't accept the amendment as friendly, we'll move to a vote on the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 27, 2009, 01:12:04 am
If Antonio doesn't accept the amendment as friendly, we'll move to a vote on the amendment.

It's probably better to do one vote than two - so we're better off waiting a bit for Antonio V's response.  I'll send him a PM letting him know of the proposal, in case he just logs on briefly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 27, 2009, 01:36:26 am
If Antonio doesn't accept the amendment as friendly, we'll move to a vote on the amendment.

It's probably better to do one vote than two - so we're better off waiting a bit for Antonio V's response.  I'll send him a PM letting him know of the proposal, in case he just logs on briefly.

I agree, sorry - wasn't planning on starting the vote right now - was meaning that we'll wait and see what he says, and if he doesn't accept, we can move straight to a vote - as opposed to opening debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 27, 2009, 03:10:40 am
Yeah, I accept. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 27, 2009, 07:51:53 am
Yeah, I accept. :)

In that case, unless there are any objections, let's move to a final vote.

The question is:

That - The Bill as amended be agreed to.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." I think the Ayes have it. Is a division required? A division is required. Ring the bells.

The Ayes shall pass to the right of the chair, the Noes to my left.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 27, 2009, 07:52:30 am
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 27, 2009, 08:10:31 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 27, 2009, 08:21:54 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on October 27, 2009, 12:54:36 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 27, 2009, 02:27:15 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 27, 2009, 09:49:02 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 27, 2009, 10:27:47 pm
More representation is always good and the increased likelihood of ties places more importance and duties on the Lt. Gov, potentially making those races more important and competitive in the process. Also, if the Mideast can support 5, we can do 6 just fine. We will have more voters and candidates next time, I'm certain. We've already seen a renewed interest in the region, as witnessed by the return of Mr. Moderate, Rockefeller Republican, fezzyfestoon, and Dr. Cynic, all former members who made comebacks related to the creation of this great body.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 27, 2009, 10:27:48 pm
AYE!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 27, 2009, 11:28:36 pm
Love mod review. Always makes me laugh.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 27, 2009, 11:41:01 pm
What's the timetable on this vote?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 28, 2009, 12:34:33 am
What's the timetable on this vote?

I think it's meant to stay open 24 hours to give everyone the chance to vote (but able to be closed earlier if everyone votes before then. Just waiting on Rocky and then we can finish it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 28, 2009, 01:22:43 am
What's the timetable on this vote?

I think it's meant to stay open 24 hours to give everyone the chance to vote (but able to be closed earlier if everyone votes before then. Just waiting on Rocky and then we can finish it.

Very well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 28, 2009, 07:03:24 am
There being seven votes in favour, none opposed, the question is resolved in the affirmative.

(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/3715_06_10_09_9_04_47.jpg)

What's next on the agenda? The Chair is not sure which piece of legislation we're considering next.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 28, 2009, 07:21:20 am
Look at the Proposed Legislation Thread. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 28, 2009, 10:32:02 am
Fair Distribution of Public Money Act

1. Following provisions shall apply to any private enterprise that receives a public monetary help from the Northeast Region after this law will become effective.
2. Any enterprise in this situation shall not fire any employee for economical reasons.
3. Any enterprise in this situation shall distribute less than 10% of its added value to its shareholders by year.
4. In case when an enterprise does not respect provisions of articles 2) and 3), it shall be fined of an amount equal to the total amount of money that this enterprise received from the Northeast Region.

Sponsor: AntonioV

The Question is shall the Bill be considered?

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative AntonioV, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 28, 2009, 12:41:34 pm
Fellow Representatives,

The massive economic crisis we are comfronted to did many victims. Our whole financial system collapsed, several prosperous enterprises got ruined in few days, and the entire national economy was about to disappear. If this didn't happen, it's entirely thanks to a proud government, that managed to take the right decisions to avoid the crisis. Now we all know how necessary government intervention is, and how keynesianism can sav entire countries.
Now, I want to talk about those about whom we don't use to talk, even though they are the basis of our economy, our society and our nation : the people. Thousands of workers have been fired, partly because of the economic crisis, partly because of shareholders' cupidity. If this was understandable in the previous system, when our government believed like a dogma in the "laisser-faire" dogma. But now each of you knows how silly it was, and how we need the State to act in favor of a better functionin of the society. The government acted as it should for the enterprises. Now it must do the same for the people.
An enterprise that receives a public help shouldn't fire workers just to make more money, but should invest and make the entire society benefit to the wealth it creates. The collectivity helped them to survive, now they have to give something back to the collectivity. That's the purpose of this law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 28, 2009, 05:17:17 pm
Support


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 28, 2009, 06:21:54 pm
I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.  Even if we were, I don't like this law.  The reason any company would need help is because it's in trouble and needs to restructure.  Employee layoffs are part of the equation when businesses are failing.  Would you rather companies go out of business entirely?  Everyone loses their jobs then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 28, 2009, 06:47:20 pm
I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.

Stimulus bill money is managed by Regions. Therefore, we do.


Quote
Even if we were, I don't like this law.  The reason any company would need help is because it's in trouble and needs to restructure.  Employee layoffs are part of the equation when businesses are failing.  Would you rather companies go out of business entirely?  Everyone loses their jobs then.

The fact industry is in a bad situation is the reason why we're helping it. Since we're doing, they should use this money, among other things, to avoid firing their employees.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 28, 2009, 08:11:57 pm
Rep. Hamilton asked me to delare here that he proposes capping the salaries of those who work at companies who accept stimulus funds from the region.

To admins: Maybe enought with this mod, you harmed legislatuive work >:(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 28, 2009, 09:05:34 pm
I would ask my collegue, Rep. Antonio to please clarify for me what businesses recieve funds from the Northeastern Government.

I would like more employee protection added to this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 28, 2009, 09:41:02 pm
I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.

Stimulus bill money is managed by Regions. Therefore, we do.

We have no law on our books distributing stimulus money to anyone.


Quote
The fact industry is in a bad situation is the reason why we're helping it. Since we're doing, they should use this money, among other things, to avoid firing their employees.

Avoiding firing employees is totally different than baring a company from laying off workers in tough times.   Unfortunately, that needs to be done in tough economic times.  If there's no business, there's no business.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 29, 2009, 05:50:20 am
I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.

Stimulus bill money is managed by Regions. Therefore, we do.

We have no law on our books distributing stimulus money to anyone.

Northeast Relief and Recovery Act

Section 1: Acceptance of Funds

1. The Northeast hereby accepts the funds given by the Federal Government as per F.L. 32-13: 2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act.

What will we do with this money ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 29, 2009, 01:48:33 pm
I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.

Stimulus bill money is managed by Regions. Therefore, we do.

We have no law on our books distributing stimulus money to anyone.

Northeast Relief and Recovery Act

Section 1: Acceptance of Funds

1. The Northeast hereby accepts the funds given by the Federal Government as per F.L. 32-13: 2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act.

What will we do with this money ?

We haven't decided.  Some will go to pay for the tax credits (and we've already spent more than the paltry sum we're receiving on that) - if we're allowed to.  Some will go to things mandated by the bill (like road repaving).   ALL of the money comes with strings or restrictions on what we can do with it, in some form.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 29, 2009, 02:36:33 pm
We will certainly help some businesses with this money, partly. If we don't, we have no possibility to restore the economy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 29, 2009, 02:42:58 pm
The Nor'east is in a deep struggle right now and the Atlasian dollar is worth just under 90 cents.

Rep. Cinyc, something has to be done. We need protection for the working man and woman, and we need to ensure that grafting is eliminated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 29, 2009, 04:18:31 pm
The Nor'east is in a deep struggle right now and the Atlasian dollar is worth just under 90 cents.

Rep. Cinyc, something has to be done. We need protection for the working man and woman, and we need to ensure that grafting is eliminated.

We've already provided tax relief for Northeast residents.  We have NOT yet made any Northeast stimulus funds available to Northeast businesses.  Those are the facts.  This bill is premature - and wrong-headed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 29, 2009, 05:33:03 pm
The Nor'east is in a deep struggle right now and the Atlasian dollar is worth just under 90 cents.

Rep. Cinyc, something has to be done. We need protection for the working man and woman, and we need to ensure that grafting is eliminated.

We've already provided tax relief for Northeast residents.  We have NOT yet made any Northeast stimulus funds available to Northeast businesses.  Those are the facts.  This bill is premature - and wrong-headed.

Better too soon than too late.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 29, 2009, 06:05:24 pm
The Nor'east is in a deep struggle right now and the Atlasian dollar is worth just under 90 cents.

Rep. Cinyc, something has to be done. We need protection for the working man and woman, and we need to ensure that grafting is eliminated.

We've already provided tax relief for Northeast residents.  We have NOT yet made any Northeast stimulus funds available to Northeast businesses.  Those are the facts.  This bill is premature - and wrong-headed.

Better too soon than too late.

Once again, your bill DOESN'T distribute any stimulus funds - and the Northeast has no law distributing stimulus funds.  You're putting conditions on something that doesn't exist.  Wouldn't it make more sense to make something exist before putting conditions on it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 29, 2009, 07:15:18 pm
Not necessarily. We WILL give funds to enterprises and it's the only thing that counts.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 29, 2009, 08:00:52 pm

We've already provided tax relief for Northeast residents.  We have NOT yet made any Northeast stimulus funds available to Northeast businesses.  Those are the facts.  This bill is premature - and wrong-headed.

Since when is a little check any real help. I'm talking about employment protection. Without a job, that little tax credit is useless.

Also, in regard to the stimulus, there is definately an assurance that some funds will go toward business relief. It is in that regard that I'd like to call the question as soon as possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 30, 2009, 02:55:11 pm
Dear Mr. President

I hereby resigning the office of Northeast Representative, with immediate effect

Sincerely,
Kalwejt


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 30, 2009, 04:18:56 pm
Dear Mr. President

I hereby resigning the office of Northeast Representative, with immediate effect

Sincerely,
Kalwejt

Sorry to hear that.

Shouldn't we be putting the bill on the floor to a vote?  It's been 48 hours and there are no proposed unfriendly amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on October 30, 2009, 04:51:58 pm
Shouldn't we be putting the bill on the floor to a vote?  It's been 48 hours and there are no proposed unfriendly amendments.

Theorically, we should. However, I'd present to fellow representatives a special motion to suspend the vote until things will get back normal in the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 30, 2009, 10:47:50 pm
Shouldn't we be putting the bill on the floor to a vote?  It's been 48 hours and there are no proposed unfriendly amendments.

Theorically, we should. However, I'd present to fellow representatives a special motion to suspend the vote until things will get back normal in the Assembly.

Second.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on October 30, 2009, 10:53:36 pm
I'd like, for the end, to make a final explanation.

Time spend there, especially in the first Assembly, was one of the greatest things in my forum live, perhaps even greatest.

It's not that I'm mad or something on anyone. But my RL schedulde is busy and, at least for few next months, it would be really difficult to me to carry out normal work as a Representative. As of other reasons mentioned, I was bitter for a while and added them to the list. Yet, RL was the deciding factor. Sorry guys, but my studies have to come first now.

I'm sorry for suddenly of this decision. In fact, I've been thinking on that for few last days.

Because I'm rather unorganized man, esspecially when it comes to my plans, I moved to Alaska not because I'm dissapointed with Northeast (hell no!), but, due to recent registration restrictions, to not have a point of return for few months.

Keep your excellent work!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 31, 2009, 12:20:54 pm
Dear Mr. President

I hereby resigning the office of Northeast Representative, with immediate effect

Sincerely,
Kalwejt

Resignation accepted. Thank you for your service, Representative.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 01, 2009, 03:54:39 pm
I hereby open up a final vote on the following bill. Voting lasts twenty-four hours, please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

Fair Distribution of Public Money Act


1. Following provisions shall apply to any private enterprise that receives a public monetary help from the Northeast Region after this law will become effective.
2. Any enterprise in this situation shall not fire any employee for economical reasons.
3. Any enterprise in this situation shall distribute less than 10% of its added value to its shareholders by year.
4. In case when an enterprise does not respect provisions of articles 2) and 3), it shall be fined of an amount equal to the total amount of money that this enterprise received from the Northeast Region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 01, 2009, 04:01:43 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 01, 2009, 04:06:27 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on November 01, 2009, 07:37:58 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 02, 2009, 12:55:39 am
This bill is way premature.  

Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 02, 2009, 03:33:37 pm
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 03, 2009, 02:57:00 pm
Aye

Assuming I have the powers granted to those in the Atlasian Senate when replacing a sitting member in the middle of a vote, I get to overwrite this.

And I do so by voting nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on November 03, 2009, 03:01:00 pm
Aye

Assuming I have the powers granted to those in the Atlasian Senate when replacing a sitting member in the middle of a vote, I get to overwrite this.

And I do so by voting nay.

My reappointment was rules invalid, so don't bother


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 03, 2009, 03:17:32 pm
Anyways, Hamilton and Moderate votes are too late, so the Bill passed 2-1.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 03, 2009, 03:43:59 pm
techinically, I did not miss the vote


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 03, 2009, 04:21:50 pm
Anyways, Hamilton and Moderate votes are too late, so the Bill passed 2-1.

lol, 37.5% turnout


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 03, 2009, 04:25:01 pm
Anyways, Hamilton and Moderate votes are too late, so the Bill passed 2-1.

lol, 37.5% turnout

50%. I turned out. I just edited my vote afterward.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 03, 2009, 05:11:00 pm
With two Ayes, and one Nay, and one abstention, this Bill has passed. I present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 03, 2009, 05:15:42 pm
With two Ayes, and one Nay, and one abstention, this Bill has passed. I present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.



I urge the governor to veto this bill and allow Mr. Moderate and the others who didn't the chance to vote.

Should the Veto Override Amendment be next on the agenda?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 03, 2009, 05:16:46 pm
With two Ayes, and one Nay, and one abstention, this Bill has passed. I present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.



I urge the governor to veto this bill and allow Mr. Moderate and the others who didn't the chance to vote.

Should the Veto Override Amendment be next on the agenda?

I want it vetoed because I wanted to propose an amendment. I spent the weekend at home and did not access the computer much, so did not have a chance to do this as I wanted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 03, 2009, 05:48:20 pm
Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, and must veto legislation which he does not support, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The Question is shall the Bill be considered?

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative ciync, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 03, 2009, 06:48:49 pm
Fully support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 03, 2009, 07:29:13 pm
Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, and must veto legislation which he does not support, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The Question is shall the Bill be considered?

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative ciync, has the floor.


Thank you, Mr. Lt. Governor. 

I yield to the original sponsor of this Amendment, Former (and current) Rep. Mr. Moderate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 04, 2009, 01:05:20 pm
Well, simply put, this body needs to institutionalize a procedure for overriding a Governor's veto, and then enshrine it in the constitution.  As it currently stands, the constitution makes virtually no mention of the legislature's ability to respond to a veto. And what little mention it does make is terribly confusing.

One interpretation of the current rule is that the legislature can currently override a veto with a  simple majority vote.  Clearly, that is an affront to our tradition of separation of powers—it essentially negates all the governor's power when it comes to the issue of vetoing legislation.

Simply put, this amendment will align our government with most standing legislative bodies in fantasyland and beyond—to override a governor's veto, we should need to pass a two-third majority vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 04, 2009, 03:10:36 pm
Two comments:

1) If the Seats Amendment passes, the size of this legislature will be set at 6.  Assuming everyone initially votes on a bill and the Lt. Governor isn't needed to break a tie, the vote could go 4-2.  That's both a majority AND a 2/3rds majority.  Thus, under the proposed amendment, a veto could be overridden by a mere majority of members in a legislature of 6 (or less than 5, for that matter).  At a minimum, I think we should change "by a two-thirds majority vote" to "by more than a two-thirds majority vote".

2) Given our recent issues with Representatives actually showing up to vote, what happens if less than everyone, say, only 4 members vote on an override?  Should a 3-1 vote be sufficient to override a veto?  Or should we be saying something like:

If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a vote of more than two-thirds of its members, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

That I'm not as adamant about - but would like to hear other Representatives' point of view.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 04, 2009, 03:18:13 pm
That makes sense, I support this Amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 04, 2009, 04:53:39 pm
Makes sense to me. I've got no argument against this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 05:09:19 pm
I remember talking with cinyc about this previously, and it's obviously necessary to include bur we are running on the assumption that the Seats number amendment passes. I don't think it would effect many other numbers, though, anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 04, 2009, 06:18:55 pm
I think it is sufficient to say "at least two-thirds" of voting members.

This means that if we have a six-member Chamber, veto over-rides will occur if there is a vote of four, however if the size of the Legislature is changed by future Amendments, we don't have to change the numbers again.

Perhaps "two-thirds of votes exercisable" might be better, meaning that for a Legislature of 6, four votes are required, regardless of how many people vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 07:18:32 pm
I'm offering this amendment:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 07:58:00 pm
I call for an emergency vote on this resolution. (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103122.msg2216437#msg2216437)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 04, 2009, 08:13:38 pm
I open an emergency vote on this resolution. Voting lasts twenty-four hours. Vote Aye, nay or Abstain.

Resolution Recognizing the RANM's Status in New Mexico

1. The Northeast Region recognizes New Mexico as a separate political entity under the control of the Revolutionary Army of New Mexico and its leader, WMS.
2. The Northeast Region hereby allows Northeastern industries to trade with New Mexico.


Legislation currently being debated has not be tabled, I will probably open a vote on that immediately after this is finished, tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 08:15:07 pm
Aye.


We must move on. We must not let the free market fall due to a revolution beyond our control. If we make the first motion for piece with the revolutionary army, we will not be targeted, but embraced. The benefits are on our side on this one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 04, 2009, 08:30:23 pm
The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 08:31:05 pm
The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?

Actually, this is a final vote. That's how I read his post, anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 04, 2009, 08:35:24 pm
The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?

Actually, this is a final vote. That's how I read his post, anyway.

That's how I read it, too, hence the question marks - since my vote will be different depending on whether this is a final vote or a motion to debate, I need the clarification before voting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 04, 2009, 08:38:34 pm
Has his revolution succeeded?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 04, 2009, 08:39:22 pm
The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?

Actually, this is a final vote. That's how I read his post, anyway.

That's how I read it, too, hence the question marks - since my vote will be different depending on whether this is a final vote or a motion to debate, I need the clarification before voting.

This is a final vote. I'm doing this because of the word "Emergency". But I'd love to hear your opinion. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 04, 2009, 08:48:38 pm
The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?

Actually, this is a final vote. That's how I read his post, anyway.

That's how I read it, too, hence the question marks - since my vote will be different depending on whether this is a final vote or a motion to debate, I need the clarification before voting.

This is a final vote. I'm doing this because of the word "Emergency". But I'd love to hear your opinion. :)

My opinion is that you can rule either way on this and that if there is dissent in the Chair's ruling, it can be challenged by the Legislature and put to a vote. I don't think it matters much either way and I for one won't be challenging the Chair's ruling.


(In my opinion, not necessary, but the procedural way of dealing with a challenge to the ruling would be):
The motion there would be "That the Chair's Ruling be dissented from" - to that question, a vote of Aye would be to open debate on the motion and a vote of Nay would be to uphold the Chair's ruling to proceed straight to final vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 04, 2009, 08:52:50 pm
For the final vote on the Motion being considered:

Nay.

We have seen a hostile invasion of a free Atlasian state. The terrorists who have seized power are holding innocent Atlasian citizens hostage. Until there are free and fair elections in New Mexico to determine the issue of self-governance, we cannot and should not recognise the independent governance of the state. If a majority of citizens residing in New Mexico support self-governance, we should of course support their desire, however until a free and fair referendum is held in the state, we must consider it occupied Atlasian territory.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 04, 2009, 08:53:14 pm
Having played a quick game of catch up with the situation, although I strongly disapprove of the federal government's use of federal troops without the Senate's consent, I must stand by my gut feelings in the situation. Should the New Mexicans succeed, then I will support recognition.

Until then, my vote is NAY.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on November 04, 2009, 11:24:56 pm
Nay, definitely.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 05, 2009, 01:05:09 am
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 05, 2009, 01:27:42 am
Nay

Standing with a paramilitary movement fighting against a democratically elected regional government makes no sense.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 01:48:27 am
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 05, 2009, 01:59:08 am
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.

I am following what I would do in the real life situation. That is, any attempt to dismember the union, I would not support.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:00:44 am
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.

I am following what I would do in the real life situation. That is, any attempt to dismember the union, I would not support.

Okay, but there wouldn't be a RANM in real life either. :P

I just think it's useless to even have the GM do these things if nothing interesting is going to be done with it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 05, 2009, 02:06:42 am
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.

I am following what I would do in the real life situation. That is, any attempt to dismember the union, I would not support.

Okay, but there wouldn't be a RANM in real life either. :P

I just think it's useless to even have the GM do these things if nothing interesting is going to be done with it.

Yes... But what would become of the Northeast?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:08:20 am
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.

I am following what I would do in the real life situation. That is, any attempt to dismember the union, I would not support.

Okay, but there wouldn't be a RANM in real life either. :P

I just think it's useless to even have the GM do these things if nothing interesting is going to be done with it.

Yes... But what would become of the Northeast?

That's what we'd find out, isn't it? ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 05, 2009, 02:14:03 am
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.

I am following what I would do in the real life situation. That is, any attempt to dismember the union, I would not support.

Okay, but there wouldn't be a RANM in real life either. :P

I just think it's useless to even have the GM do these things if nothing interesting is going to be done with it.

Yes... But what would become of the Northeast?

That's what we'd find out, isn't it? ;)

I'd rather protect the interests of the most populous region in the country. I'd like to protect the interests of my constituents, and I'd like to keep from being branded a traitor or a supporter of traitors. I'd be glad if this thing played out well, but I'll not see us be pulled into it at the moment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 05, 2009, 10:24:43 am
So, let me try to get this straight... we're voting on whether or not we support a terrorist movement to break up our union?

...um.

Nay?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 05, 2009, 12:42:45 pm
Fellow Representatives,

After having reflected about the consequences of recent Amendment to the Amendment proposed by Cinyc (at school :P), I started to fear about the possibility that just two members not voting could block any veto override, what I find dangerous.
That's why, I've decided to propose an Amendment, that I hope will be considered as friendy.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, with at least half of the total number of Reps voting in favor, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 12:57:38 pm
I already offered that amendment, Antonio. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 05, 2009, 01:19:17 pm
I'm offering this amendment:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

This is almost the same, but didn't take into account the "turnout" objection, which I consider to make sense. Could I ask Rep Cinyc which version he prefers ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 01:23:49 pm
I'm offering this amendment:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

This is almost the same, but didn't take into account the "turnout" objection, which I consider to make sense. Could I ask Rep Cinyc which version he prefers ?

The main reason I oppose turn out objections are because they allow for a filibuster of sorts.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 05, 2009, 01:27:09 pm
I'm offering this amendment:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

This is almost the same, but didn't take into account the "turnout" objection, which I consider to make sense. Could I ask Rep Cinyc which version he prefers ?

The main reason I oppose turn out objections are because they allow for a filibuster of sorts.

First of all, we need to find a compromise, all the more so that's a constitutionnal amendment. Secondly, my turnout restriction is absolutely reasonable, and in normal times allows to override vetos with a 3-1 majority.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 05, 2009, 02:24:45 pm
I'm offering this amendment:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

This is almost the same, but didn't take into account the "turnout" objection, which I consider to make sense. Could I ask Rep Cinyc which version he prefers ?

Well, I've tried to open this up for discussion because I'm largely agnostic about it.  On the one hand, I'd like to force all members to vote on everything - especially a veto override.  On the other hand, I realize that's not always realistic.

The best way to deal with it might be to add "more than" to the constitutional language and create a quorum requirement in the SOAP (or the Constitution, if necessary)- for ALL bills.  There should NEVER be a bill that passes without a vote of less than half our members.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 05, 2009, 02:34:50 pm
The best way to deal with it might be to add "more than" to the constitutional language and create a quorum requirement in the SOAP (or the Constitution, if necessary)- for ALL bills.  There should NEVER be a bill that passes without a vote of less than half our members.

Agreed, 100%.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 05, 2009, 03:15:16 pm
It's not realistic to expect every member to be able to vote on everything before the body. Real life does sometimes interfere. I strongly support the turnout amendment to the bill. It's the only realistic way to do it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 04:02:08 pm
The best way to deal with it might be to add "more than" to the constitutional language and create a quorum requirement in the SOAP (or the Constitution, if necessary)- for ALL bills.  There should NEVER be a bill that passes without a vote of less than half our members.

Agreed, 100%.

No. either 100% or no "quorum." Come on, all that does is open the door ofor legislative tactics that change how legislation is actually voted on. I want the chance to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. i don't want to worry about whether or not to vote at all due to a quorum. If there are 3 votes in favor and 1 Nay, and I vote Nay, that passes the bill. or I could just not vote. That doesn't relaly benefit the legislative body, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 05, 2009, 09:49:48 pm
The best way to deal with it might be to add "more than" to the constitutional language and create a quorum requirement in the SOAP (or the Constitution, if necessary)- for ALL bills.  There should NEVER be a bill that passes without a vote of less than half our members.

Agreed, 100%.

But it's not realistic to think that can happen all the time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 05, 2009, 10:06:06 pm
The Ayes are one, the Nays are Six. With a majority of Representatives voting in the Negative, the Resolution has failed. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 05, 2009, 11:49:58 pm
So the revised bill should read as follows (new langage in purple:

Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, and must veto legislation which he does not support, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The Question is shall the Bill be considered?

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative ciync, has the floor.

[/quote]


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 06, 2009, 01:49:28 am
Ok, that's fine with me. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 06, 2009, 02:01:03 am
Looks good here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 06, 2009, 09:28:28 am
Would that mean a 4–2 override vote would go to the Lt. Governor for tie breaking?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on November 06, 2009, 10:08:38 am
Would that mean a 4–2 override vote would go to the Lt. Governor for tie breaking?

That actually sounds like a good idea, intentional or not.  I definitely don't think 4 votes is enough for an override though.  So with 4 the Lt. Governor deciding sounds good to me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 06, 2009, 10:26:59 am
Okay.  It may be redundant, but redundancy is okay, IMHO, to avoid confusion: Can we add a line to the amendment stating that override votes of exactly two-thirds (like that 4-2 situation) will be decided by the Lt. Governor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 06, 2009, 12:24:26 pm
Okay.  It may be redundant, but redundancy is okay, IMHO, to avoid confusion: Can we add a line to the amendment stating that override votes of exactly two-thirds (like that 4-2 situation) will be decided by the Lt. Governor?

Seconded. Just add that a vote of exactly two thirds in favor shall be considered as a tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 06, 2009, 12:40:52 pm
Would that mean a 4–2 override vote would go to the Lt. Governor for tie breaking?

That actually sounds like a good idea, intentional or not.  I definitely don't think 4 votes is enough for an override though.  So with 4 the Lt. Governor deciding sounds good to me.

Yep, this was a good idea.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 06, 2009, 02:36:43 pm
Would that mean a 4–2 override vote would go to the Lt. Governor for tie breaking?

I don't think the Lt. Governor should have any role in overrides, to be honest.  He's a member of the executive branch that vetoed the bill in the first place.

Should we put that proposal to a vote?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 06, 2009, 02:57:59 pm
I hold to the statute of tie of a 4-2 situtation.

Should we put that proposal to a vote?

If necessary, yes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 06, 2009, 04:32:14 pm
I think we should vote on it now that we've got a solid plan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 07, 2009, 08:50:06 am
Bump.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 07, 2009, 03:29:49 pm
Bump.

I think we'd all like to see voting open as quickly as possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 07, 2009, 03:31:55 pm
Well, are we going to vote on the Amendment to the Bill, or is friendly? Either way, I need to see it typed up in an actual form to insert in to the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 07, 2009, 03:34:25 pm
I propose this amendment:

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature. An override vote resulting in an exactly two-thirds majority shall be considered a tie for this purpose, to be broken by vote of the Lieutenant Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 07, 2009, 05:31:06 pm
I'll take Hamilton's amendment as friendly.  The full bill as amended (with the newer additions in purple):

Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, and must veto legislation which he does not support, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.  An override vote resulting in an exactly two-thirds majority shall be considered a tie for this purpose, to be broken by vote of the Lieutenant Governor.
-------------------
I think this is ready to proceed to a final vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 07, 2009, 05:47:08 pm
I open a final vote on this Bill. Voting lasts twenty-four hours. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.  An override vote resulting in an exactly two-thirds majority shall be considered a tie for this purpose, to be broken by vote of the Lieutenant Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 07, 2009, 05:47:39 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 07, 2009, 05:48:14 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 07, 2009, 06:48:11 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 07, 2009, 08:33:14 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 07, 2009, 09:20:53 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 08, 2009, 11:33:11 am
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on November 08, 2009, 12:46:53 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 08, 2009, 01:22:27 pm
We only need Rep. RockefellerRepublican to vote, and I can go ahead and end the voe. Can someone PM him? :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 08, 2009, 05:53:22 pm
The Ayes are Seven, the Nays are zero, the Amendment has passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 08, 2009, 06:00:54 pm
Northeast initiative for ethics in voting

Whereas :
- The action of asking people that absolutely don't take part in Atlasian politics to vote for one candidate in order to serve one person's political interest is a clear threat for democracy.
- Recent events permitted to put on light how common said practices have become.
- Northeast Region is particularly concerned by said practices.
- The absence of specific legislation on this domain at the federal level is the main cause of said practices.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly states that :
- Zombie voting is not welcome in the Northeast Region, and shall be fought by every legal mean.
- Every elected official of the Northeast Region shall be exemplary on this domain, for example resigning from his/her office if he/she considers that his/her election was due to zombie voters.
- The Northeast Region officially urges the Senate to pass a law that will restrict voting rights to people who really take part in Atlasia outside voting booths.

Sponsor: Rep. AntonioV

The Questions is Shall the Bill be Considered?

Those is favor, say Aye, those opposed, No.

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor,  Antonio V, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 08, 2009, 06:45:35 pm
Motion to table. Sorry, Antonio, but this bill doesn't do anything and we need to get to the legislation in the queue that will make an impact on the average Northeasterner.

I'd be willing to work on creating separate voting requirements for our region independent of the SoFA office, but this resolution is quite pointless.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 08, 2009, 08:12:36 pm
Why don't we let Antonio explain the bill first?

I have serious concerns about the last paragraph.  Not everyone who votes is going to be able to meaningfully participate on the Atlas Fantasy Elections boards.  There aren't enough elective seats - nor should they be.  Citizens shouldn't be penalized for being passive. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 08, 2009, 08:16:18 pm
Besides, in real life, most voters don't follow politics at all. They still get to vote. That's part of campaigning, and probably the fun part-- talking to voters about your record, working on the undecideds, and basically escaping the stupid, cliquey atmosphere of this board.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: gregusodenus on November 08, 2009, 08:19:48 pm
I hope I am not stepping across any guidelines, but I have input on the Northeast initiative for Ethics in Voting. I believe that this initiative, although with good intentions, does nothing to combat the problem at hand. It recognizes a problem, but provides no regional law against the problem. Until we take stronger action, and take this issue out of the hands of the Federal Gov't, nothing will get done.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 08, 2009, 08:20:47 pm
I hope I am not stepping across any guidelines, but I have input on the Northeast initiative for Ethics in Voting. I believe that this initiative, although with good intentions, does nothing to combat the problem at hand. It recognizes a problem, but provides no regional law against the problem. Until we take stronger action, and take this issue out of the hands of the Federal Gov't, nothing will get done.

You can comment here, but I already acknowledged that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: gregusodenus on November 08, 2009, 08:59:08 pm
I hope I am not stepping across any guidelines, but I have input on the Northeast initiative for Ethics in Voting. I believe that this initiative, although with good intentions, does nothing to combat the problem at hand. It recognizes a problem, but provides no regional law against the problem. Until we take stronger action, and take this issue out of the hands of the Federal Gov't, nothing will get done.

You can comment here, but I already acknowledged that.

I just wanted to get my two cents in. I wanted to make it clear that I support the intention of this bill, but also describe how I want bills to be passed that have some practical use.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 08, 2009, 11:18:28 pm
I hope I am not stepping across any guidelines, but I have input on the Northeast initiative for Ethics in Voting. I believe that this initiative, although with good intentions, does nothing to combat the problem at hand. It recognizes a problem, but provides no regional law against the problem. Until we take stronger action, and take this issue out of the hands of the Federal Gov't, nothing will get done.

You can comment here, but I already acknowledged that.

I just wanted to get my two cents in. I wanted to make it clear that I support the intention of this bill, but also describe how I want bills to be passed that have some practical use.

You're welcome to post your thoughts in the Assembly! We are Servants of the people! :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 09, 2009, 12:48:56 am

You can comment here, but I already acknowledged that.

Assembly is open to all Northeastern residents...

I would like to support this bill, but I would like Antonio to explain to me how a Representative is bound to resign because inactive voters voted for them... I hope he can better explain it to me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 09, 2009, 11:54:01 am
bump for antonio


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 09, 2009, 12:27:27 pm
Fellow Representatives,

We are certainly at a determinating point of Atlasian History, and while it's late enough to see what will be Atlasia if we do nothing, it still isn't too late to do something. But this "something" shall be done now, now or never.
Some people, coming from the right as well as the left, used to the Atlasian political system and very proud to consider themselves as "bosses", have slightly built obscure systems of realtionships with other people, in order to control the game more and more. The same process that led to the birth of a mafia in so many countries is now happening in Atlasia. When this process started, I wasn't even here, but at the time people couldn't realize the danger it was going to represent. Now, these big coalitions are able to recruit dozens of users, who will vote for the candidate one man wants to be elected.
You can tell me that what I'm saying is purely democratic, that in fact nobody can't win without a clear and real popular support, that the actions of these interest groups aren't so relevant. Senator RowanBrandon proudly proved us the contrary. We now know that someone, someone who was twice candidate to the presidency, considered himself powerful enough to say "I will ensure that ____ will be elected". This man is still here, still a respected member of the second largest party. But the point is that he's not the only one. A former President recently admitted to have used "some practices" in order to influentiate election results.
Now, here is the point. Rowan was condemned for telling people the truth. There are laws in Atlasia to punish people who reveal a fraud, and there is no law to punish people who practice fraud. That's why we need one, and soon. At this point of the game, a strong majority of users can still revolt and say "We don't want this kind of Atlasia !". In some moths, maybe one year, zombie voters will be more numerous than real voters, and we'll all be powerless. Elections will just be races for the one who gathers the most zombies, and people will lose all sort of interest for the game. That's why someone needs to do the first step, and I've decided to be this one.
Before concluding, I'd like to make a precision of what is a "zombie voter", since some people seem to take advantage of the legitimate indignation of Atlasian people to attack anyone for being a zombie. Someone who is recruited by an older Atlasian isn't necessarily a zombie. I'm sure some of you were recruited for a particular election, and then decided to involve in Atlasian politcs. I am in this case. The only thing that matters is what people do after being recruited. If you just vote as the person told to do, and then absolutely don't care of what happens in Atlasia, then you're a zombies. All those who act so deserve nothing but our contempt, since they are self-consenting pawns. It's only this category of people that needs to be excluded, and not the newbies, who to the contrary can bring a lot to Atlasia.
Now, I'd like to respond to the objections that have been formulated recently. First of all, saying that we need to focus on problems affecting the "average Atlasian" is populism. The first duty of a legislator is to protect its democracy and ensure it will not die. If we don't, we're either cowards or corrupts. Now the main argument pointed out is that these practices are normal in any demoracy and shall be tolerated. We could say it sometimes ago, when zombie voting was a marginal practice. That's not the case anymore. Just imagine if, in the USA, half of the voters were entirely controlled by their partie's political machine, never looking at the news, not caring about the reality, not even knowing who is the guy they are voting for... Just imagine half of the voters were recruited by an influent member of the Dem or the GOP and are ready to do whatever he tells them to do. Wouldn't you do something ?
A last clarification : As I mentioned, this bill shall be considered as a first step of a long and difficult democratic process. It's not, properly speaking, a Bil, but just a declaration of intent. All that is written here hasn't any effective power, meaning that Reps will still be allowed to do whatever they want. This is a solemn delcaration stating that, in the battle that will soon oppose true democrats to pawns and puppetmasters, the Northeast sides with the democracy. Some of you told me that they would like us to go farther, and propose a real bill. I will answer that this issue is a regional government's issue, in which the only power of regions is speaking their minds. Clearly speaking, voting a bill against zombie voting in the NE will be twice unconstitutional, for both the NE and the Atlasian consititution. Only a federal amendment may deal with this issue, and that's why this declaration enjoins the Senate to pass one soon.
We are at a tipping point, fellow Reps., and now the future of Atlasia depends to you. Not all of you, but each of you, at the moment when you will cast your vote in favor or in opposition to this declaration. The future will judge us, and your next vote will certainly contribute to determinate this judgement.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 09, 2009, 02:04:09 pm
It's a bit hard to build that case as a JCP member. There are the largest perpetrators.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 09, 2009, 03:32:27 pm
Representative Antonio, I must confess originally I was leaning in support of the measure, however, after some thought I am leaning against. The reason being is that while I sympathize with its intent, I don't know that it will truly accomplish anything. Our actions may do nothing in the Senate and this will be a waste of time. So, I'm hoping that you can convince me otherwise...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 10, 2009, 01:47:54 am
Thank you, Antonio.

I reiterate my concern about the last paragraph of your bill.  Not everyone who votes is going to be able to meaningfully participate on the Atlas Fantasy Elections boards.   How are we to differentiate between the non-participating posters and zombies?  Someone named Torie - one of the most respected posters on the Atlas Forum - a zombie because he hadn't posted the Altas Fantasy Elections forums recently.  That makes no sense, and the last paragraph seems over-inclusive.

As to the second-to-last paragraph, I've recruited nobody, and have no way of knowing whether someone who votes for me is a zombie.  The last election wasn't competitive, so zombies weren't an issue.  The upcoming December elections may be more competitive.  If I decide to run for reelection and somehow win, how am I supposed to know if I should resign - especially when we're using PR-STV voting, and I may be some light-posting constituent's third or fourth choice?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 10, 2009, 02:07:54 am
I would like to offer the following amendment to my esteemed collegue and friend's initiative. This will make the statement more palatable and more in line with a realistic goal:

Northeast initiative for ethics in voting

Whereas :
- The action of asking people that absolutely don't take part in Atlasian politics to vote for one candidate in order to serve one person's political interest is a clear threat for democracy.
- Recent events permitted to put on light how common said practices have become.
- Northeast Region is particularly concerned by said practices.
- The absence of specific legislation on this domain at the federal level is the main cause of said practices.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly states that:
- Zombie voting is not welcome in the Northeast Region, and shall be fought by every legal mean.
- Every elected official of the Northeast Region shall be exemplary on this domain, for example resigning from his/her office if he/she considers that his/her election was due to zombie voters.

- The Northeast Region officially urges the Senate to pass a law that will restrict voting rights to people who really take part in Atlasia outside voting booths.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 10, 2009, 02:14:33 am
Still can't support. I don't want to see the whole nation purged, leaving, what, 20 people? Come on.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 10, 2009, 07:21:59 am
Thank you, Antonio.

I reiterate my concern about the last paragraph of your bill.  Not everyone who votes is going to be able to meaningfully participate on the Atlas Fantasy Elections boards.   How are we to differentiate between the non-participating posters and zombies?  Someone named Torie - one of the most respected posters on the Atlas Forum - a zombie because he hadn't posted the Altas Fantasy Elections forums recently.  That makes no sense, and the last paragraph seems over-inclusive.


To the contrary, I tried to make it as precise and catious as possible. Only a poster who never takes part in Atlasia shall be considered as a zombie, which Torie obviously isn't. The text of tthis "bill" doesn't say anything else.


Quote
As to the second-to-last paragraph, I've recruited nobody, and have no way of knowing whether someone who votes for me is a zombie.  The last election wasn't competitive, so zombies weren't an issue.  The upcoming December elections may be more competitive.  If I decide to run for reelection and somehow win, how am I supposed to know if I should resign - especially when we're using PR-STV voting, and I may be some light-posting constituent's third or fourth choice ?

Again, you have your own discretion for that. Nobody will force you to resign and nobody will decide who is or not a zombie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on November 10, 2009, 08:01:15 am
While I understand and respect the intent of the legislation, I can't see myself supporting it in any form.  Not only is it far too ambiguous, it's just not realistic.  "Mafias" as you put it have always existed in Atlasia and will continue to exist as long as Atlasia does.  Sure, we can go ahead and say we don't like it, but the odds are half the people voting yes will have been involved in some tactics deemed inappropriate by this legislation.  I cannot tell you how many times I was recruited to vote by Atlasians from every party while I was inactive for the last year.  And when every vote counts for so much, the potential for corruption increases exponentially.  It's the way it works here and vocalizing our opposition to it would be one of the most vacuous efforts in Northeast history.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 10, 2009, 11:14:21 am
While I understand and respect the intent of the legislation, I can't see myself supporting it in any form.  Not only is it far too ambiguous, it's just not realistic.  "Mafias" as you put it have always existed in Atlasia and will continue to exist as long as Atlasia does.  Sure, we can go ahead and say we don't like it, but the odds are half the people voting yes will have been involved in some tactics deemed inappropriate by this legislation.  I cannot tell you how many times I was recruited to vote by Atlasians from every party while I was inactive for the last year.  And when every vote counts for so much, the potential for corruption increases exponentially.  It's the way it works here and vocalizing our opposition to it would be one of the most vacuous efforts in Northeast history.

So, let's make nothing because this would be useless anyways ?
Either we try to solve something, or at least to claim our oppositon, or we quietly assist as spectator to the game's takeover. I don't want to be of those who do nothing just because they think it will be useless. The only question you should ask yourself is "Is it right ?" and not "Is it useful" ?

And BTW, I shall reject Dr. Cinyc's Amendment, which I consider will empty the whole declaration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 10, 2009, 03:12:04 pm
Without the amendment, I cannot support it. It's just not a realistic expectation, even if it passes this body, to think that the Senate would pass something along those lines. I don't know what it would do. It's so ambiguous. I like your intent, just not this particular initiative.

As much as I would like to see something done here... It just can't happen with this one, my friend.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 10, 2009, 04:21:13 pm
Without the amendment, I cannot support it. It's just not a realistic expectation, even if it passes this body, to think that the Senate would pass something along those lines. I don't know what it would do. It's so ambiguous. I like your intent, just not this particular initiative.

As much as I would like to see something done here... It just can't happen with this one, my friend.

Will you still keep your Amendment on the Floor? if you do, then we'll have to vote on it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 10, 2009, 05:24:37 pm
Without the amendment, I cannot support it. It's just not a realistic expectation, even if it passes this body, to think that the Senate would pass something along those lines. I don't know what it would do. It's so ambiguous. I like your intent, just not this particular initiative.

As much as I would like to see something done here... It just can't happen with this one, my friend.

Will you still keep your Amendment on the Floor? if you do, then we'll have to vote on it.

That's probably the right thing to do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 10, 2009, 05:33:04 pm
I open up a vote on the Amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Northeast initiative for ethics in voting

Whereas :
- The action of asking people that absolutely don't take part in Atlasian politics to vote for one candidate in order to serve one person's political interest is a clear threat for democracy.
- Recent events permitted to put on light how common said practices have become.
- Northeast Region is particularly concerned by said practices.
- The absence of specific legislation on this domain at the federal level is the main cause of said practices.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly states that:
- Zombie voting is not welcome in the Northeast Region, and shall be fought by every legal mean.
- Every elected official of the Northeast Region shall be exemplary on this domain, for example resigning from his/her office if he/she considers that his/her election was due to zombie voters.

- The Northeast Region officially urges the Senate to pass a law that will restrict voting rights to people who really take part in Atlasia outside voting booths.

Proposed by: Rep. Doctor Cynic


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 10, 2009, 05:33:35 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 10, 2009, 05:36:10 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 10, 2009, 07:33:20 pm
BUMP for more votes. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 10, 2009, 11:32:57 pm
I'm keeping the amendment before the floor.

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 11, 2009, 12:05:27 am
Aye on the Dr Cynic Amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 11, 2009, 01:29:47 am
Nay on the amendment. 

I can't vote for an Amendment I have issues with, even if it's an improvement over the final bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on November 11, 2009, 08:04:13 am
I would like to make my position on the bill currently on the floor clear, as it addresses an issue I hold dear.

Firstly, I would like to commend Antonio for attacking such a touchy and controversial issue in the way that he did. It's honourable and respectable. However, that being said, I fear that this bill is just a strongly worded resolution just like I can pass a strongly worded resolution in the Senate declaring my hatred of Stephen Harper. It won't do anything, except make some headlines. The issue of zombies requires not resolutions condemning the practice, but real action, which is something that this bill lacks and also something that the Assembly might lack the power of passing. That is why I have offered Antonio the opportunity for him to draft legislation on this issue that I will work with him on and later introduce in the Senate, in the hope that some reform can be done on the issue. I'm happy that he has accepted my offer.

Furthermore, I would like to disagree with the notion that doing nothing is the best solution, because it isn't. I don't want the results of Atlasian elections decided by how many voters the parties have registered. Elections should be competitive but also suspenseful and not an issue of registering voters to vote for your party. We have elections, not registration contests, and I want it to remain that way.

I thank you for your time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 11:15:00 am
Voters in the Northeast have proven that they aren't party hacks but voters who will vote on the issues.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 11, 2009, 07:57:58 pm
The Ayes are three, the Nays are two; the Amendment is adopted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 08:02:08 pm
I'm introducing this amendment:

Whereas :
- The action of asking people that absolutely don't take part in Atlasian politics to vote for one candidate in order to serve one person's political interest is a clear threat for democracy.
- Recent events permitted to put on light how common said practices have become.
- Northeast Region is particularly concerned by said practices.
- The absence of specific legislation on this domain at the federal level is the main cause of said practices.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly states that:
- The Northeast Region officially urges the Senate to pass a law that will restrict voting rights to people who really take part in Atlasia outside voting booths.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly establishes that:
- The Northeast Region shall establish independent voting requirements for the region, to be effective beginning January 2010, requiring a voter to be removed of privilege of voting in Northeastern regional elections if that voter should miss two consecutive regional elections. The citizen may re-register at any time and have voting privilege reinstated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 11, 2009, 08:54:02 pm
I think it's too late to offer amendments under the SOAP.  Should we not proceed to a final vote on the bill, as amended?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 11, 2009, 09:13:00 pm
I think it's too late to offer amendments under the SOAP.  Should we not proceed to a final vote on the bill, as amended?

That is the correct procedure. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 09:54:19 pm
Excuse me, but no. I proposed this amendment as soon as the vote was closed on the previous one. I motion to suspend SOAP and vote on it. There is no reason that I should have to interrupt on-going votes to introduce amendments that won't be voted on until after anyways.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 11, 2009, 09:57:32 pm
Excuse me, but no. I proposed this amendment as soon as the vote was closed on the previous one. I motion to suspend SOAP and vote on it. There is no reason that I should have to interrupt on-going votes to introduce amendments that won't be voted on until after anyways.

The rules clearly state, that at the end of the debating period, all proposed amendments are voted on, and then we move on immediately to a final vote.

Quote
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).

Quote
(f) A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  A final vote on veto overrides shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation or veto override shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 11, 2009, 10:08:46 pm
Excuse me, but no. I proposed this amendment as soon as the vote was closed on the previous one. I motion to suspend SOAP and vote on it. There is no reason that I should have to interrupt on-going votes to introduce amendments that won't be voted on until after anyways.

The reasons the SOAP rules are what they are is so that we don't get bogged down on any one piece of legislation with constant amendments to it - especially since we generally only debate one bill at a time. All amendments should be proposed within the 48-hour debate period.   There's no reason why your proposed amendment couldn't have been.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 10:58:41 pm
Excuse me, but no. I proposed this amendment as soon as the vote was closed on the previous one. I motion to suspend SOAP and vote on it. There is no reason that I should have to interrupt on-going votes to introduce amendments that won't be voted on until after anyways.

The rules clearly state, that at the end of the debating period, all proposed amendments are voted on, and then we move on immediately to a final vote.

Quote
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).

Quote
(f) A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  A final vote on veto overrides shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation or veto override shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).



Then this is a problem with the SOAP that needs addressed. Many amendments are the result of other amendments passing, such as this one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 11, 2009, 11:28:04 pm
Then this is a problem with the SOAP that needs addressed. Many amendments are the result of other amendments passing, such as this one.

Nothing prohibits you from offering an amendment conditioned on the passing of another or working with the person proposing an amendment to get your language added.

Time is of the essence here.  I doubt we're going to get through half of the proposed legislation queue this session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 11:31:00 pm
Then this is a problem with the SOAP that needs addressed. Many amendments are the result of other amendments passing, such as this one.

Nothing prohibits you from offering an amendment conditioned on the passing of another or working with the person proposing an amendment to get your language added.

Time is of the essence here.  I doubt we're going to get through half of the proposed legislation queue this session.

I would not have introduced this amendment if that one hadn't passed. Does SOAP have a provision for conditional amendments?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 11:36:20 pm
Anyways... as for time concerns.

It will take far less time to deal with this now than for me to put this in the queue as an amendment and forced to spend at least 36 hours on this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 12, 2009, 08:56:56 am
FWIW, an independent voter registration/activity statute would be a nightmare to administer.  I'm fine with going along with the feds on that one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 12, 2009, 03:13:13 pm
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.
Can we open a final vote on this ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 12, 2009, 03:33:43 pm
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.

No, see. Your legislation here is useless. My amendment creates a policy that attempts to relieve the burdens of inactive voters. Without my provision, this legislation is hollow and pointless.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 12, 2009, 04:00:08 pm
I second Rep. Antonio's motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 12, 2009, 04:14:24 pm
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.

No, see. Your legislation here is useless. My amendment creates a policy that attempts to relieve the burdens of inactive voters. Without my provision, this legislation is hollow and pointless.

"Inactive voters" are not the problem. The problem is not who doesn't vote, but who votes even though he doesn't care at all of Atlasia. Your idea doesn't solve anything, solves a problem that isn't one, and is just a pretext.
And you perfectly know all that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 12, 2009, 04:15:20 pm
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.

No, see. Your legislation here is useless. My amendment creates a policy that attempts to relieve the burdens of inactive voters. Without my provision, this legislation is hollow and pointless.

"Inactive voters" are not the problem. The problem is not who doesn't vote, but who votes even though he doesn't care at all of Atlasia. Your idea doesn't solve anything, solves a problem that isn't one, and is just a pretext.
And you perfectly know all that.

I don't get how you could be so concerned with this and still remain in the JCP. If you want to take a stand on this, you need to be the change you seek.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 12, 2009, 04:21:36 pm
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.

No, see. Your legislation here is useless. My amendment creates a policy that attempts to relieve the burdens of inactive voters. Without my provision, this legislation is hollow and pointless.

"Inactive voters" are not the problem. The problem is not who doesn't vote, but who votes even though he doesn't care at all of Atlasia. Your idea doesn't solve anything, solves a problem that isn't one, and is just a pretext.
And you perfectly know all that.

I don't get how you could be so concerned with this and still remain in the JCP. If you want to take a stand on this, you need to be the change you seek.

This is not the right thread to start again a personal controversy as you are used to. I would answer very easily to this but we represent the Northeast and now need to vote on a text, as specified in the SOAP.

Are the Governor, the President, the CJO or the Speaker around here ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 12, 2009, 04:22:32 pm
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.

No, see. Your legislation here is useless. My amendment creates a policy that attempts to relieve the burdens of inactive voters. Without my provision, this legislation is hollow and pointless.

"Inactive voters" are not the problem. The problem is not who doesn't vote, but who votes even though he doesn't care at all of Atlasia. Your idea doesn't solve anything, solves a problem that isn't one, and is just a pretext.
And you perfectly know all that.

I don't get how you could be so concerned with this and still remain in the JCP. If you want to take a stand on this, you need to be the change you seek.

This is not the right thread to start again a personal controversy as you are used to. I would answer very easily to this but we represent the Northeast and now need to vote on a text, as specified in the SOAP.


It takes 5 seconds to change your registration to Independent.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 12, 2009, 10:42:47 pm
I open up a final vote on this Initiative. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours. (I will not be here tomorrow, so, Smid is in charge on Friday.)

Northeast initiative for ethics in voting

Whereas :
- The action of asking people that absolutely don't take part in Atlasian politics to vote for one candidate in order to serve one person's political interest is a clear threat for democracy.
- Recent events permitted to put on light how common said practices have become.
- Northeast Region is particularly concerned by said practices.
- The absence of specific legislation on this domain at the federal level is the main cause of said practices.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly states that:
- The Northeast Region officially urges the Senate to pass a law that will restrict voting rights to people who really take part in Atlasia outside voting booths.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 12, 2009, 10:46:27 pm
Nay

Unless you A) support issue knowledge tests in order to vote in real life or B) want people to SPAM this board, there is no reason to support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 12, 2009, 11:36:20 pm
It's far from perfect, but it's a start.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 13, 2009, 01:48:21 am
Aye, though it's quite weak.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 13, 2009, 04:00:23 am
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 13, 2009, 07:50:12 am
Nay. I don't like zombie voters, but I like even less the idea of cleansing Atlasia of it's more casual residents in favor of those we deem "more worthy" via activity.

Likely, I'd have been considered a zombie at some point following my presidency when I went into inactivity (save for my regular general election voting record).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 13, 2009, 11:58:26 pm
Nay.

I fear that this would not prevent zombie voters, merely encourage them to make irrelevant posts on this board. They do enough damage by voting... getting them to "contribute" to the board when such contributions would be meaningless, is only compounding their influence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 14, 2009, 12:02:21 am
There being two votes in favour and four votes against, the question is resolved in the negative.

(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/3715_06_10_09_9_04_47.jpg)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 14, 2009, 12:05:41 am
The next Bill, I believe, is:

Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following.
2. This constitution may be changed, altered, modified or amended if all of the following methods are met:
i) An affirmative vote of two thirds of voting (either in the affirmative or in the negative) members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.
ii) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly, voting, abstaining and absent members combined.
iii) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.
3. Any Citizen of the Northeast Region shall be allowed to create a petition to repeal a Constitutional Amendment that previously passed. If three Northeast Citizens sign this petition, a polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time of the Friday following the petition's creation. The voters shall vote "aye" if they favor repealing or "nay" if they oppose it. If more than one third of the voters votes "aye", the Amendment shall be repealed. The same Amendment shall not be put on vote by this procedure more than once in 180 days.

The question is:

That - The Bill be considered. All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary "no." I believe the Ayes have it.

The Proposer, Antonio V, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 14, 2009, 08:40:02 am
Fellow Representatives,

The power for people to control the Amendment proposals is an essential element of our constitution, and the goal of this Amendment is absolutely not to harm this principle.
Now, the establishment of an elected Assembly, added with the adoption of a bad Amendment concerning this issue, made the current Amending procedure particularly long, complicated, and difficult. That's why I am proposing this Amendment. Today, to pass an Amendment, we first need to reach a 2/3th majority, then the approval of governor. But after that, we still need to wait for 4 months, and the next gubernatorial election, to make it finally so. And the only way for an Amendment to go though all this is to get an absolute majority of all the registered voters, which is far from being easy... Concretely, it is almost impossible to modify our constitution without a quasi-unanimous approval, and that's not fair. It's important that for Amendments proposed to be consensual and moderate, but an Amendment should not fail only because of the lack of concern of voters.
To the contrary, with the system I propose, if a strong minority of citizens refuse an Amendment and mobilize themselves, they still can repeal it. But the refusal is only made a posteriori, with a possibility of seeing how it works before rejecting it. To say it simply, this Amendment is as democratic as the preceding, but more efficient.

I'm sure we can pass it and therefore definitely put an end to this series of constitutionnal reforms in order to make the system work better.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 14, 2009, 04:12:50 pm
I have no problem allowing for a vote of the people on Constitutional Amendments more frequently - either with the Assembly elections or once a month - or even lowering the ratification standards a bit.  I do have a problem with Constitutional Amendments becoming law without a vote of the people.  The Constitution ought not to be changed without a vote of the people.  If the proposed amendment passes, the Assembly could in theory cut the people out by passing an amendment removing the ability for the people to protest.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 14, 2009, 05:13:28 pm
I have no problem allowing for a vote of the people on Constitutional Amendments more frequently - either with the Assembly elections or once a month - or even lowering the ratification standards a bit.  I do have a problem with Constitutional Amendments becoming law without a vote of the people.  The Constitution ought not to be changed without a vote of the people.  If the proposed amendment passes, the Assembly could in theory cut the people out by passing an amendment removing the ability for the people to protest.

I admit that I probably neglected this problem (though the risk of such thing happening is very low), and would have no problem with a friendly Amendment modifying it. Here are my two greatest concerns :
- Removing any turnout requirement, which is terribly unfair and favors immobilism.
- Making votes on the Amendments occur, say, not more than one month after it passed in the Assembly.

If these two things will be guaranteed, I shall accept anything. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on November 14, 2009, 08:31:50 pm
Mr. Speaker

I hear by resign my office as Northeastern Representative, effective immediately. Due to my lack of interest in the office, combined with my attentions largely focusing on outside interests, mostly schooling this was an easy decision for me to make.

Good and Good Luck in the days ahead.

Rocky


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 14, 2009, 08:35:23 pm
Mr. Speaker

I hear by resign my office as Northeastern Representative, effective immediately. Due to my lack of interest in the office, combined with my attentions largely focusing on outside interests, mostly schooling this was an easy decision for me to make.

Good and Good Luck in the days ahead.

Rocky

Thank you for your service, Representative.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on November 14, 2009, 08:39:19 pm
Thank you for your service, Representative.

While I do thank you Lieutenant Governor for your kind words I personally doubt you should be thanking me. If anything, I was one of this Assembly's least active representatives who, I believe voted on only one piece of legislation. Regardless, this Assembly at least shall be much more active without my lingering presence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on November 15, 2009, 01:14:37 am
Mr. Speaker

I hear by resign my office as Northeastern Representative, effective immediately. Due to my lack of interest in the office, combined with my attentions largely focusing on outside interests, mostly schooling this was an easy decision for me to make.

Good and Good Luck in the days ahead.

Rocky

I'm very sad to see you leaving the Assembly Conor, we will miss you. With that in mind, I plan on announcing someone to take the seat first thing Monday morning. Please contact me if you are intersted, those who have already contacted me dont worry, I have your names already.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 15, 2009, 03:34:36 am
Mr. Speaker

I hear by resign my office as Northeastern Representative, effective immediately. Due to my lack of interest in the office, combined with my attentions largely focusing on outside interests, mostly schooling this was an easy decision for me to make.

Good and Good Luck in the days ahead.

Rocky

Well, you took the right decision. ;) According to the constitution, you should already have been ousted. :P


With that in mind, I plan on announcing someone to take the seat first thing Monday morning. Please contact me if you are intersted, those who have already contacted me dont worry, I have your names already.

If he didn't already do, I'd like to suggest NewDealDem. Since Rocky was a JCPer, and that without him I'm now the only one, this will mantain the current balance.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 16, 2009, 12:20:16 am
As I see no Amendments have been proposed, and the alloted forty-eight debate period has expired, I open up a final vote on this Bill. Voting lasts twenty-four hours, Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following.
2. This constitution may be changed, altered, modified or amended if all of the following methods are met:
i) An affirmative vote of two thirds of voting (either in the affirmative or in the negative) members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.
ii) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly, voting, abstaining and absent members combined.
iii) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.
3. Any Citizen of the Northeast Region shall be allowed to create a petition to repeal a Constitutional Amendment that previously passed. If three Northeast Citizens sign this petition, a polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time of the Friday following the petition's creation. The voters shall vote "aye" if they favor repealing or "nay" if they oppose it. If more than one third of the voters votes "aye", the Amendment shall be repealed. The same Amendment shall not be put on vote by this procedure more than once in 180 days.

 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 16, 2009, 12:54:53 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 16, 2009, 01:29:43 am
Nay, in its present form.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 16, 2009, 06:38:49 am
I  had no time to re-write it myself, but this is still better than the current situation.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on November 16, 2009, 06:56:31 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 16, 2009, 10:34:16 am
I really can't support an amendment process that circumvents the voters.  The current process stinks, but this new one is just introducing even more problems.

Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 16, 2009, 06:00:28 pm
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 16, 2009, 06:03:57 pm
This will rim the voters over and remove another element of democracy from our system. In the interests of the people of the Northeast, and in my first vote, I am therefore going to have to say:

NAY.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 16, 2009, 06:48:43 pm
This will rim the voters over and remove another element of democracy from our system. In the interests of the people of the Northeast, and in my first vote, I am therefore going to have to say:

NAY.

It might not go so well if you try to channel the people in your every vote, particularly when you haven't even been elected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 17, 2009, 02:00:21 am
This will rim the voters over and remove another element of democracy from our system. In the interests of the people of the Northeast, and in my first vote, I am therefore going to have to say:

NAY.

It might not go so well if you try to channel the people in your every vote, particularly when you haven't even been elected.

Disraeli is a joke. "OMG EVIL FREDUM HATERZ OMG !!!!!" is the only argument he can provide.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 17, 2009, 12:32:22 pm
The Ayes are Three; the Nays ae Four. The Bill has failed.



Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

The Question is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Rep. Antonio V, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 17, 2009, 02:03:58 pm
I'm too bothered thes times to make a speech. This bill has been created by former Rep Kalwejt and I just introduced it to keep it valid after his resignation.

Anyways, considering that conservatives have an absolute majority here I guess this bill has no chance to pass...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 17, 2009, 03:29:45 pm
It's unfortunate that this wouldn't pass, because it seems to be common sense. Anyone who would consider themselves pro-gun should embrace this measure. Not only does it provide for common safety, and it doesn't limit sales to anyone except the mentally imbalanced.

Would you want a crazy person to have a gun?...

Other than that, I don't see why this bill can't be supported. So if my conservative friends on the other side of the asile could explain any opposition, I welcome the chance to fight on this bill's behalf, if Antonio doesn't want to.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 17, 2009, 04:18:14 pm
Sorry, mate, but recent events totally demoralized me. Nowadays, facts and logical reasonments don't matter anymore.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 04:52:14 pm
This will rim the voters over and remove another element of democracy from our system. In the interests of the people of the Northeast, and in my first vote, I am therefore going to have to say:

NAY.

It might not go so well if you try to channel the people in your every vote, particularly when you haven't even been elected.

Disraeli is a joke. "OMG EVIL FREDUM HATERZ OMG !!!!!" is the only argument he can provide.

Don't be an ass.

As to the new act, I oppose any attempts to restrict the right to bear firearms, as they are the best defence against invasion of property by criminals. Atlasia was historically a frontier country, and guns are part of our tradition.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 05:07:04 pm
The Ayes are Three; the Nays ae Four. The Bill has failed.



Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

The Question is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Rep. Antonio V, has the floor.


Actually, I'd be willing to sign this as a compromise if Sections 2 and 5 were struck from the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 17, 2009, 05:10:07 pm
Why would you be opposed to safety classes and I.D.s for getting a firearm? That's a pretty foolish thing to do.

I oppose any restriction on the production or selling of firearms, but it stands to reason this would be helpful and somewhat necessary.

Safety and Liberty can coexist within this bill and I defy you to prove otherwise.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 05:13:01 pm
The Ayes are Three; the Nays ae Four. The Bill has failed.



Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

The Question is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Rep. Antonio V, has the floor.


I would like to offer two amendments, one to strike Section 2, and one to strike Section 5.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 05:14:09 pm
Why would you be opposed to safety classes and I.D.s for getting a firearm? That's a pretty foolish thing to do.

I oppose any restriction on the production or selling of firearms, but it stands to reason this would be helpful and somewhat necessary.

Safety and Liberty can coexist within this bill and I defy you to prove otherwise.

I don't see why the government should have any role in telling the people the right way to use a firearm. To me, it seems like the first step in an attempt to simply restrict guns altogether. As for IDs, citizens have a RIGHT to bear arms, one which should not be infringed upon by ID checks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 17, 2009, 05:14:27 pm
The Ayes are Three; the Nays ae Four. The Bill has failed.



Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

The Question is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Rep. Antonio V, has the floor.


I would like to offer two amendments, one to strike Section 2, and one to strike Section 5.

You will have to reprint the bill with the desired amendments to make it official. Go back a few pages and see how it's done. It's easy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 05:17:05 pm
I would like to offer the following, amended version of the bill for debate.

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 17, 2009, 05:17:29 pm
I don't see why the government should have any role in telling the people the right way to use a firearm. To me, it seems like the first step in an attempt to simply restrict guns altogether. As for IDs, citizens have a RIGHT to bear arms, one which should not be infringed upon by ID checks.

So, then released criminals or those with criminal backgrounds could get those guns anyway?... Also, it makes perfect sense to have gun safety courses available. What would be the point of having it if you can't use it? I see no reason why these should be stricken.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 05:20:34 pm
I don't see why the government should have any role in telling the people the right way to use a firearm. To me, it seems like the first step in an attempt to simply restrict guns altogether. As for IDs, citizens have a RIGHT to bear arms, one which should not be infringed upon by ID checks.

So, then released criminals or those with criminal backgrounds could get those guns anyway?... Also, it makes perfect sense to have gun safety courses available. What would be the point of having it if you can't use it? I see no reason why these should be stricken.

I support having them AVAILABLE. What he is asking is for it to be COMPULSORY. Also, criminals, if caught, would be facing extra time for using a firearm in aggression AS WELL as breaking the law by possessing one in the first place.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 17, 2009, 05:42:58 pm
I am strongly in favour of this Bill.

As far as I'm aware, the Atlasian Constitution is silent regarding the right to bear arms? Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 17, 2009, 08:46:20 pm
I am strongly in favour of this Bill.

As far as I'm aware, the Atlasian Constitution is silent regarding the right to bear arms? Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong?

False.  The First Amendment to the Second Atlasian Constitution (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/First_Amendment_to_the_Second_Constitution)  states "The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms has always been in it; the First Amendment amended Article VI, Section 4 to add the low-potency explosives part.

This bill is arguably unconstitutional under that provision, which, lacking a preamble mentioning a well-regulated militia,  is even more explicit than the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.  I'll have to look to see if any similar federal or regional law is on the books.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 17, 2009, 09:25:35 pm
I've found 3 laws on gun ownership, 2 federal and 1 in the Northeast (subject to the usual
caveat that NE bills passed 2007 and later aren't in the wiki).

Let's discuss the Northeastern law first, the Northeast Concealed Carry Act (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_Concealed_Carry_Act).  It allows our citizens to get a 5-year license to conceal carry firearms if they pay a fee.  The only citizens to which this license will be denied are persons convicted of violent crimes or robbery - and they get their rights back if they stay out of trouble for 5 years, get a job, marry someone with a job, or grow old enough.  There's no exception for persons with mental illness.

Under the federal Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Protection_of_the_Right_to_Bear_Arms_Act), everyone but a convicted felon that a court has independently punished by removing his right to bear arms could theoretically own a gun under federal law.  And under the Expansion of Gun Rights Act (http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Expansion_of_Gun_Rights_Act), everyone but minors, convicted felons whose rights a court has taken away, and "anyone who is insane" can conceal carry in DC and the federal territories without a permit.

So under the proposed law, it would be illegal to sell a gun to people who otherwise might have the right to conceal and/or bear arms under Northeastern and federal law - at a minimum, those convicted of non-violent crimes, non-violent felons whose rights have been taken away by a court, and persons with mental illness.

The wiki doesn't say whether the constitutionality of these laws has been challenged.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 18, 2009, 12:11:33 am
I support having them AVAILABLE. What he is asking is for it to be COMPULSORY. Also, criminals, if caught, would be facing extra time for using a firearm in aggression AS WELL as breaking the law by possessing one in the first place.

I think what the bill is asking is perfectly reasonable. It's not as though they are being restricted in anyway, but providing photo I.D. is a reasonable safety precaution. There's nothing in this bill about making them unavailable to anyone other than the criminal or the insane. Identification presentation is one way to help prevent them from falling into those hands.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 19, 2009, 04:43:19 am
I think what the bill is asking is perfectly reasonable. It's not as though they are being restricted in anyway, but providing photo I.D. is a reasonable safety precaution. There's nothing in this bill about making them unavailable to anyone other than the criminal or the insane. Identification presentation is one way to help prevent them from falling into those hands.

My main problem with the bill even is amended as how it deals with criminals and especially the insane.  Owning a gun is a right in Atlasia, and no one's rights should be taken away without due process.  The bill's blanket prohibition on selling guns to convicted felons doesn't comport with current federal or Northeastern law (why should a white collar criminal be unable to hunt for life after serving his time?),  "confirmed mental illness" isn't defined, and a judicial determination of "confirmed mental illness" (whatever that is - remember - in the old days, that would have meant being homosexual)  isn't necessary, as I read the bill.  Would a soldier returning from the recent battle in New Mexico who seeks treatment for PTSD be swept up in the language?  Possibly - and he shouldn't be, absent a judicial determination that he is insane.  And the law shouldn't stop potential gun owners from seeking help for mental illness, nor should it allow a psychiatrist alone to determine when we should be taking constitutional rights away from people.

I haven't had time to mark up an amendment, though may tomorrow if we're willing to wait for it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 19, 2009, 10:31:04 am
Can we really wind up being opposed to checking the ID of people who want to buy guns?  I mean, my God, even the NRA supports that, no?

I agree on striking number 5.  Why we need to waste valuable public school time on gun safety courses, I have no idea.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 19, 2009, 10:33:11 am
I think what the bill is asking is perfectly reasonable. It's not as though they are being restricted in anyway, but providing photo I.D. is a reasonable safety precaution. There's nothing in this bill about making them unavailable to anyone other than the criminal or the insane. Identification presentation is one way to help prevent them from falling into those hands.

My main problem with the bill even is amended as how it deals with criminals and especially the insane.  Owning a gun is a right in Atlasia, and no one's rights should be taken away without due process.  The bill's blanket prohibition on selling guns to convicted felons doesn't comport with current federal or Northeastern law (why should a white collar criminal be unable to hunt for life after serving his time?),  "confirmed mental illness" isn't defined, and a judicial determination of "confirmed mental illness" (whatever that is - remember - in the old days, that would have meant being homosexual)  isn't necessary, as I read the bill.  Would a soldier returning from the recent battle in New Mexico who seeks treatment for PTSD be swept up in the language?  Possibly - and he shouldn't be, absent a judicial determination that he is insane.  And the law shouldn't stop potential gun owners from seeking help for mental illness, nor should it allow a psychiatrist alone to determine when we should be taking constitutional rights away from people.

I haven't had time to mark up an amendment, though may tomorrow if we're willing to wait for it.

This is actually a very good point, IMO.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 19, 2009, 02:10:40 pm
After a rethink, I've decided I'm willing to accept this as long as Section 5 is stricken:

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 19, 2009, 02:28:29 pm
Well, this is the least important part of the bill, so in exchange to the promise for you to vote in favor of the amended bill I may support it.
Petty politics... :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 19, 2009, 02:30:30 pm
Well, this is the least important part of the bill, so in exchange to the promise for you to vote in favor of the amended bill I may support it.
Petty politics... :P

Deal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 19, 2009, 02:35:42 pm
Well, this is the least important part of the bill, so in exchange to the promise for you to vote in favor of the amended bill I may support it.
Petty politics... :P

Deal.

Great.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 19, 2009, 07:36:04 pm
Let me try to put language to a proposed amendment:

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly selling firearms to any individuals with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

Or, without the strikethroughs:
1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 19, 2009, 07:43:30 pm
A few points on my proposed amendment:

1) The original bill never stated what level of crime selling guns to felons or those with confirmed mental illness would be.  I've chosen misdemeanor, but we should discuss whether it should be something lower (a violation) or higher (some sort of felony).
2) I added a knowing requirement because, quite frankly, I don't think we or the feds keep a database for sellers to check.  This bill doesn't fund or create any such database.
3) I've tried to draft the amendment to track current current Northeast and federal law so that it passes constitutional muster.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 19, 2009, 07:47:50 pm
Let me try to put language to a proposed amendment:

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly selling firearms to any individuals with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

Or, without the strikethroughs:
1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.


Is this friendly, Antonio?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 20, 2009, 11:09:44 am
Accepted as friendly. ;)
Very good job, BTW.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 20, 2009, 04:26:47 pm
I open up a final vote on the following Bill. Please vote Aye, nay or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 20, 2009, 05:01:55 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 20, 2009, 05:09:34 pm
I'm a man of my word, and I see nothing wrong with this bill, so:

AYE.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 20, 2009, 05:44:09 pm
This is perfectly acceptable.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on November 20, 2009, 06:10:51 pm
Oh, is that my former project? :)

Btw, isn't Hamilton seat vacant since he left Atlasia?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 20, 2009, 06:11:53 pm
Oh, is that my former project? :)

Btw, isn't Hamilton seat vacant since he left Atlasia?

It's been filled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fernie Color of Melon on November 20, 2009, 06:43:07 pm
Oh, is that my former project? :)

Btw, isn't Hamilton seat vacant since he left Atlasia?

It's been filled.

Sorry but as you know I was not really around recently.

Who replaced Rocky and Hamilton?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 20, 2009, 07:11:48 pm
Winston Disraeli replaced Rocky. 

I don't think Hamilton has even been removed from the Assembly yet.  He's made no formal resignation and hasn't been convicted of a crime - or even brought up on any charges, yet.  Governor Andrew CT certainly hasn't named any replacement on his office thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 20, 2009, 09:24:48 pm
A very good Bill. Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on November 20, 2009, 10:25:31 pm
Winston Disraeli replaced Rocky. 

I don't think Hamilton has even been removed from the Assembly yet.  He's made no formal resignation and hasn't been convicted of a crime - or even brought up on any charges, yet.  Governor Andrew CT certainly hasn't named any replacement on his office thread.

I havent heard anything yet on his resignation, or anything yet. Has his time run out in this place yet?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 20, 2009, 11:02:38 pm
Winston Disraeli replaced Rocky. 

I don't think Hamilton has even been removed from the Assembly yet.  He's made no formal resignation and hasn't been convicted of a crime - or even brought up on any charges, yet.  Governor Andrew CT certainly hasn't named any replacement on his office thread.

I havent heard anything yet on his resignation, or anything yet. Has his time run out in this place yet?

I haven't see anything, either. But, if he misses this vote and the next one (he's already missed this one), he'll be expelled from the Assembly.
Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 21, 2009, 08:25:49 am
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 21, 2009, 03:39:38 pm
Notice from the president:

Until the matter of whether or not Hamilton is still a member of Atlasia, all legislation proposed by Rep. Hamilton will not be considered.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 21, 2009, 04:31:25 pm
The Ayes are five, the Nays are zero. The Bill has passed. I present it to the Governor for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 21, 2009, 05:07:08 pm
Huzzah!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 21, 2009, 08:44:27 pm
Notice from the president:

Until the matter of whether or not Hamilton is still a member of Atlasia, all legislation proposed by Rep. Hamilton will not be considered.

That's fine.  Other members might want to look at the queue to see if they want to sponsor any of Hamilton's bills.

Edited to add: As I see it, Mr. Moderate's Cape Wind bill should be next, followed by Dr. Cynic's Green Jobs initiative.  Everything else is Hamilton's, so there should be time to debate a few other bills before the next election.  I've added a revised Amending Procedure Amendment to the queue tonight - which will basically put proposed amendments to a public vote on the third Friday of the month.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 21, 2009, 10:03:15 pm
Resolution in Support of Cape Wind

Whereas the Northeast Region believes that clean energy provides both environmental and eventual economic benefit that outweighs aesthetic concerns, and,

Whereas the Northeast Region wishes to be a national leader in the move towards clean energy, and,

Whereas the Cape Wind Energy Project, an offshore wind farm off Nantucket Island in Massachusetts, has the support of 84% of Massachusetts adults )according to a 2007 public opinion survey),

Therefore be it resolved that the Northeastern Legislature affirms its support for the Cape Wind Energy Project.

The question is shall be the Bill be considered?

Those in favor, say Aye. Those opposed, No.

The Ayes have.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 21, 2009, 11:01:10 pm
Hamilton is not benned. His name still shows up on the Members List.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 21, 2009, 11:17:02 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 21, 2009, 11:27:56 pm
Hamilton is not benned. His name still shows up on the Members List.

Well, if he doesn't vote on the next bill, he will be at risk of expelled from the legislature.  Do we need to have some sort of proceedings for that?

Rep. Doctor Cynic - I don't think we're voting on Cape Wind yet.  Rep. Mr. Moderate should have the floor to explain his bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 21, 2009, 11:50:29 pm
Hamilton is not benned. His name still shows up on the Members List.

Well, if he doesn't vote on the next bill, he will be at risk of expelled from the legislature.  Do we need to have some sort of proceedings for that?

Rep. Doctor Cynic - I don't think we're voting on Cape Wind yet.  Rep. Mr. Moderate should have the floor to explain his bill.

I don't believe so. But the Constitution  is a bit vague there.

Moderate does have the floor to explain his bill, sorry about forgetting to post that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 22, 2009, 03:00:54 am
I support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 22, 2009, 06:45:09 am
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 22, 2009, 07:07:32 am
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 22, 2009, 07:09:18 am
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 22, 2009, 07:12:58 am
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

It won't be enough. Wind power can have many difficulties, but it's still better than nothing.
Obviously we should do the same for solar and hydro-electric.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 22, 2009, 07:16:53 am
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

It won't be enough. Wind power can have many difficulties, but it's still better than nothing.
Obviously we should do the same for solar and hydro-electric.

They're unsightly and inefficient. You would need a huge number of them just to power a single town, and it doesn't seem worth it, to be frank.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 22, 2009, 07:20:20 am
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

It won't be enough. Wind power can have many difficulties, but it's still better than nothing.
Obviously we should do the same for solar and hydro-electric.

They're unsightly and inefficient. You would need a huge number of them just to power a single town, and it doesn't seem worth it, to be frank.

The same applies to solar power, for the moment. But in some years we'll find ways to make them more efficient.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on November 22, 2009, 09:22:27 am
Wind power is great. I fully support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 22, 2009, 03:34:46 pm
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

I agree that wind power is not cost effective and only works when the wind blows.  But the Northeast government isn't building Cape Wind - a private company is.  If a private company wants to build a wind farm and thinks they can turn a profit, why shouldn't we support it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 22, 2009, 03:36:04 pm
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

I agree that wind power is not cost effective and only works when the wind blows.  But the Northeast government isn't building Cape Wind - a private company is.  If a private company wants to build a wind farm and thinks they can turn a profit, why shouldn't we support it?

Depends what this motion of support means.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 22, 2009, 04:08:21 pm
Just to remind Representatives, we are only debating the Bill at the moment. We are not taking a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 22, 2009, 09:22:39 pm
Hamilton is not benned. His name still shows up on the Members List.

Well, if he doesn't vote on the next bill, he will be at risk of expelled from the legislature.  Do we need to have some sort of proceedings for that?

Rep. Doctor Cynic - I don't think we're voting on Cape Wind yet.  Rep. Mr. Moderate should have the floor to explain his bill.

Expressing Support. That's all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 23, 2009, 09:52:30 am
Bump.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 23, 2009, 10:21:34 am
Aww, shucks.  I thought I had posted this last night, but I must have never hit "post."  Anyway, once more:

So, this bill is about the "controversial" Cape Wind project, a wind turbine farm planned for the coast of Cape Cod.  It's a private project that boasts significant public support, but faces well-financed opposition from wealthy Cape Cod landowners who want to protect the view in their bay windows.  We're talking about a really bad case of NIMBY here.

Realistically and scientifically, the cape is about the only place in Massachusetts with the winds needed to sustain a farm of this scope.

Though it may not seem like a resolution like this would do much, but it's a reassurance to the business community that government will not interfere with what, as I said, is considered a controversial project.  And that really does go a long way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 23, 2009, 10:37:46 pm
I hereby pen up a vote on the following resolution. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Resolution in Support of Cape Wind

Whereas the Northeast Region believes that clean energy provides both environmental and eventual economic benefit that outweighs aesthetic concerns, and,

Whereas the Northeast Region wishes to be a national leader in the move towards clean energy, and,

Whereas the Cape Wind Energy Project, an offshore wind farm off Nantucket Island in Massachusetts, has the support of 84% of Massachusetts adults )according to a 2007 public opinion survey),

Therefore be it resolved that the Northeastern Legislature affirms its support for the Cape Wind Energy Project.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 23, 2009, 10:56:54 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 23, 2009, 11:40:18 pm
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 24, 2009, 01:29:38 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 24, 2009, 07:15:48 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 24, 2009, 09:31:02 am
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 24, 2009, 07:32:22 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 24, 2009, 11:05:02 pm
The Ayes are Five; the Nays are one. The Resolution has passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 24, 2009, 11:36:07 pm
Northeastern Green Jobs Act

In order to maintain viable enviromental and employment considerations within the Northeast, the following is proposed.

1. Within one year, it is the goal of the Northeast to convert 35% of non-green jobs into green ones.

2. The Northeast shall convert all possible jobs of the government to green operation within two-five years.

3. The Northeast shall create new and green jobs to employ the currently unemployed with the goal of dropping the unemployment rate below 5% within five years.

4. Businesses will be given additional incentives to create, expand, and maintain green jobs.

Sponsor: Rep. Doctor Cynic


The Question is, shall the Bill be considered?

Those in favor, say Aye. Those opposed, no.

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative Doctor Cynic, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 25, 2009, 01:10:48 pm
Fully suport this excellent initiative. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 25, 2009, 02:14:39 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 25, 2009, 02:22:16 pm
Aye.

We're not yet voting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 25, 2009, 04:02:09 pm

I was voting for us to consider it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 25, 2009, 05:18:43 pm

We never, ever, ever vote to do that. No bill can fail to be considered.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 25, 2009, 05:25:54 pm
Right now, we are looking at an economy that is slugging along with little creation or concern for our glorious enviroment.

This bill has a two prong design. First, to protect the enviroment by converting and creating green jobs. The second is to expand the economy and shoot the unemployment rate down. Admittedly, the bill is not designed as a final solution, but rather the first step in vital enviromental protection and job creation. I urge my friends in the Assembly to approve this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 25, 2009, 07:27:10 pm
What's a green job?  What's a non-green job?  How does a government create green jobs?  And how much will this cost?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 25, 2009, 07:32:06 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_job

The same way the government creates non-green jobs. Seriously, it is just the creation of new jobs in enviromentally friendly sectors with incentives.

I don't know the cost. Ask someone who took a more advanced math course for that one. Although, it should come from the stimulus budget.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 25, 2009, 07:37:01 pm

It's a procedural vote which is carried on voices alone. It's like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp_kwUt7awo (at the 1:20 mark or thereabouts). No one votes no, so proceding continue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on November 26, 2009, 12:55:25 am

It's a procedural vote which is carried on voices alone. It's like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp_kwUt7awo (at the 1:20 mark or thereabouts). No one votes no, so proceding continue.

Except that one jackass.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 26, 2009, 04:15:20 am
As long as this applies to public sector jobs only, I don't see the problem.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 26, 2009, 11:24:04 pm
As long as this applies to public sector jobs only, I don't see the problem.

The problem is it's not clear exactly what jobs the law applies to - and our financial commitment is fairly open-ended.  I can't support this in its current form - and wouldn't know where to start to markup any amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 27, 2009, 04:54:45 pm
Seeing as no Amendments have been offered, I open up a final vote on the Bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Northeastern Green Jobs Act

In order to maintain viable enviromental and employment considerations within the Northeast, the following is proposed.

1. Within one year, it is the goal of the Northeast to convert 35% of non-green jobs into green ones.

2. The Northeast shall convert all possible jobs of the government to green operation within two-five years.

3. The Northeast shall create new and green jobs to employ the currently unemployed with the goal of dropping the unemployment rate below 5% within five years.

4. Businesses will be given additional incentives to create, expand, and maintain green jobs.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 27, 2009, 04:56:41 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 27, 2009, 05:25:16 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 27, 2009, 05:38:33 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 27, 2009, 05:49:49 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 28, 2009, 04:59:52 pm
The Ayes are Three; the Nays are One. The Bill has passed. I present it to the Governor for his signature or veto.


Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) A successful vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) A successful vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:

a) A successful vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) A successful vote of majority of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.

The questions is shall the Bill be Considered?

Those in favor, say "Aye", those opposed, "Nay".

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 28, 2009, 05:24:27 pm
This Amendment had to be reintroduced, and I thank cynic to having done so. However, this bill solves only one of the two essential problems in the current system. Accelerating the Amendment vote is certainly important, but my biggest concern was to remove the participation clause, which is undemocratic and excessively favors the status quo.
That's why I'd like to propose a friendly Amendment :


Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) A successful vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) A successful vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:a) a successful vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) A successful vote of majority of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 28, 2009, 08:45:31 pm
Rep Antonio V -  This was a first cut that only included changes on which we were likely to agree.  I was actually going to throw open the percent of the public vote required for ratification issue (and the question of how often we should be putting amendment votes to the public) for discussion.

Do we really want to totally scrap the minimum public participation requirement?  I agree that a successful vote of a majority may be difficult to reach in many cases - especially if, as in recent federal amendments, amendment proponents don't actively campaign for a change.  But should we allow a plurality of voters to change the Constitution - just because citizens weren't around one weekend and didn't vote?  Perhaps we should require a quorum of a majority of voters to vote on a proposed amendment - and 2/3rds of them to pass it.  Or we should extend the voting period to a week to allow more people to get to the polls.

I'm not taking your amendment as friendly - yet.  I'd like to hear other representatives' views on this issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 29, 2009, 04:49:12 pm
I persist to consider this system as undemocratic, since the partisans of status quo are helpe by people who don't care. The opinion of people who don't care shouldn't be considered.
Anyways, I accept to propose this one as a compromise, making the treshold more realizable. I'd like you to accept this as friendly. ;)


Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) An affirmative vote of one third of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 29, 2009, 07:44:00 pm
This is not the time for this bill. You skipped my bills.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 30, 2009, 12:11:39 am
I persist to consider this system as undemocratic, since the partisans of status quo are helpe by people who don't care. The opinion of people who don't care shouldn't be considered.
Anyways, I accept to propose this one as a compromise, making the treshold more realizable. I'd like you to accept this as friendly. ;)


Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) An affirmative vote of one third of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.


I'm willing to accept this as friendly - but would like to hear the opinion of other Reps before proceeding.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 30, 2009, 02:23:41 am
I will support this bill with the friendly amendments. Without them, I cannot support it. I don't believe in voting requirements, but am willing to compromise.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 30, 2009, 02:27:09 am
Do you mind if I amend 2c) to say "Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature" - to make it clear that he must affirmatively sign any proposed amendment?  There appears to be some sort of issue about that on the Governor's office thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 30, 2009, 03:10:16 am
Do you mind if I amend 2c) to say "Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature" - to make it clear that he must affirmatively sign any proposed amendment?  There appears to be some sort of issue about that on the Governor's office thread.

Personally, I think that's a good idea.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 30, 2009, 06:36:17 am
Do you mind if I amend 2c) to say "Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature" - to make it clear that he must affirmatively sign any proposed amendment?  There appears to be some sort of issue about that on the Governor's office thread.

Personally, I think that's a good idea.

Seconded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 30, 2009, 06:40:18 am
Do you mind if I amend 2c) to say "Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature" - to make it clear that he must affirmatively sign any proposed amendment?  There appears to be some sort of issue about that on the Governor's office thread.

Personally, I think that's a good idea.

Seconded.

Thirded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 30, 2009, 09:22:38 am
Constitutional amendments should be voted on by the full citizenry of the Northeast before they go into effect.  I'm fine with removing the requirement that says that x% of all registered citizens must vote on an amendment before it can be passed (if that is, in fact, still a requirement), but I do want to see the public involved in this procedure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 30, 2009, 09:41:07 am
Constitutional amendments should be voted on by the full citizenry of the Northeast before they go into effect.  I'm fine with removing the requirement that says that x% of all registered citizens must vote on an amendment before it can be passed (if that is, in fact, still a requirement), but I do want to see the public involved in this procedure.

So the current draft should perfectly suit you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 30, 2009, 10:12:25 am
Constitutional amendments should be voted on by the full citizenry of the Northeast before they go into effect.  I'm fine with removing the requirement that says that x% of all registered citizens must vote on an amendment before it can be passed (if that is, in fact, still a requirement), but I do want to see the public involved in this procedure.

So the current draft should perfectly suit you.

That's weird, did the bill change again?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 30, 2009, 10:28:17 am
Constitutional amendments should be voted on by the full citizenry of the Northeast before they go into effect.  I'm fine with removing the requirement that says that x% of all registered citizens must vote on an amendment before it can be passed (if that is, in fact, still a requirement), but I do want to see the public involved in this procedure.

So the current draft should perfectly suit you.

That's weird, did the bill change again?

Just read the latest post in which you see a bill, and some red characters.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 30, 2009, 01:43:07 pm
Constitutional amendments should be voted on by the full citizenry of the Northeast before they go into effect.  I'm fine with removing the requirement that says that x% of all registered citizens must vote on an amendment before it can be passed (if that is, in fact, still a requirement), but I do want to see the public involved in this procedure.

So the current draft should perfectly suit you.

That's weird, did the bill change again?

Just read the latest post in which you see a bill, and some red characters.

Maybe I just didn't read the bill right the first time.  It initially made it seem like citizens were only involved in a Maine-like people's veto of an amendment once it had already been pushed into law.

Anyway.  I'm okay with this amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on November 30, 2009, 02:09:23 pm
It initially made it seem like citizens were only involved in a Maine-like people's veto of an amendment once it had already been pushed into law.

This was an anterior Amendment which has already been put on vote and failed. The new one has been written by cynic and originally didn't changed the "turnout requirement". The new one sets it as 33% instead of 50% of reg. voters.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 30, 2009, 03:40:29 pm
This is the bill on the floor, with all friendly amendments (those in red being the most recent amendments to the proposed amendment):

Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) An affirmative vote of one third of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 30, 2009, 03:48:39 pm
Maybe I just didn't read the bill right the first time.  It initially made it seem like citizens were only involved in a Maine-like people's veto of an amendment once it had already been pushed into law.

Anyway.  I'm okay with this amendment.

The main thing my proposal does is put constitutional amendment votes to the public monthly instead of quarterly, only during gubernatorial election months.  Upon taking into account friendly advice, it also lowers the absolute percentage of Northeast citizens who most vote for an amendment from a majority to 1/3rd and cleans up the language in a few places.

That's it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 01, 2009, 07:09:08 am
Bump, I guess everyone agrees now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 01, 2009, 08:20:00 pm
I open up a final vote on this bill. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) An affirmative vote of one third of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 01, 2009, 08:20:27 pm
Nay.

Next time open debate on the bills in the proper order and I might consider them.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 01, 2009, 08:37:07 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 01, 2009, 10:05:38 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 01, 2009, 10:13:36 pm
Nay.

Next time open debate on the bills in the proper order and I might consider them.

Next time don't go running away from the Assembly, making us all think you've been permanently banned when you haven't been.  Then, things will get taken up in the proper order.  When you were supposedly banned, the Lt. Governor made the correct decision to skip over your bills.  Had you posted the truth at that time or PMed the Lt. Governor about your status, they would never had been.  You never responded or posted a notice of absence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 01, 2009, 10:14:53 pm
Nay.

Next time open debate on the bills in the proper order and I might consider them.

Next time don't go running away from the Assembly, making us all think you've been permanently banned when you haven't been.  Then, things will get taken up in the proper order.  When you were supposedly banned, the Lt. Governor made the correct decision to skip over your bills.  Had you posted the truth at that time or PMed the Lt. Governor about your status, they would never had been.  You never responded or posted a notice of absence.

I did make it very clear that I wouldn't be able to post much while I was at home. My mom had emergency surgery and I had to help take care of her, plus there was some "drama" that I don't need to get in to.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 01, 2009, 11:21:11 pm
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 01, 2009, 11:28:11 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 01, 2009, 11:28:44 pm
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 02, 2009, 01:01:57 am
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 02, 2009, 01:10:17 am
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

A provision which is largely unenforced.

Besides, how can I appeal? We don't have an active CJO? How can I appeal an expulsion for inactivity to an inactive CJO that no one seemed to want to do anything about even though I suggested a while back that Verily be replaced?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 02, 2009, 01:29:24 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 02, 2009, 01:47:49 am
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 02, 2009, 01:49:32 am
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 02, 2009, 01:55:53 am
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 02, 2009, 01:57:08 am
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.

benconstine committed a crime. I have not broken any laws. You are just mad because I used swingvoter to make fun of you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 02, 2009, 02:01:38 am
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.

benconstine committed a crime. I have not broken any laws. You are just mad because I used swingvoter to make fun of you.

Swing Voter made fun of me? I don't know if I'm just blanking or didn't see them, but now I'm curious. Please link me to the threads in question so I can enjoy the mockery.

Honestly, I hope you don't really think I get upset when a member of this forum makes fun of me. I don't mind the occasional praise, but really, it's an internet game. I'm much too invested in real life to care whether someone pokes fun at me over these info-tubes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 02, 2009, 02:04:09 am
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.

benconstine committed a crime. I have not broken any laws. You are just mad because I used swingvoter to make fun of you.

Swing Voter made fun of me? I don't know if I'm just blanking or didn't see them, but now I'm curious. Please link me to the threads in question so I can enjoy the mockery.


The entire persona was making fun of you. The RPP caught on (private forum discussions show that they thought he was YOUR sock lol).

Similar name, New York, fake "centrist" Moderate Hero type that was obviously a far-leftist, hyper-partisan, always acts like he's right. It was pretty clearly intended to mock you.

That being said, the PMs posted show that I had no intention of registering the account and with that, I have done nothing wrong related to this game.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 02, 2009, 02:09:35 am
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.

benconstine committed a crime. I have not broken any laws. You are just mad because I used swingvoter to make fun of you.

Swing Voter made fun of me? I don't know if I'm just blanking or didn't see them, but now I'm curious. Please link me to the threads in question so I can enjoy the mockery.


The entire persona was making fun of you. The RPP caught on (private forum discussions show that they thought he was YOUR sock lol).

Similar name, New York, fake "centrist" Moderate Hero type that was obviously a far-leftist, hyper-partisan, always acts like he's right. It was pretty clearly intended to mock you.

That being said, the PMs posted show that I had no intention of registering the account and with that, I have done nothing wrong related to this game.

*shrug*
Over my head. I don't follow forum affairs closely enough to catch on to these sorts of things. Life and all that stuff, ya know.

I know you had no intention of registering in Atlasia. That was never my point. You broke the ToS, are a detriment to this game and an embarrassment to this body and so it is fitting that this body impeach you. End of story as far as I am concerned.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 02, 2009, 02:12:27 am
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.

benconstine committed a crime. I have not broken any laws. You are just mad because I used swingvoter to make fun of you.

Swing Voter made fun of me? I don't know if I'm just blanking or didn't see them, but now I'm curious. Please link me to the threads in question so I can enjoy the mockery.


The entire persona was making fun of you. The RPP caught on (private forum discussions show that they thought he was YOUR sock lol).

Similar name, New York, fake "centrist" Moderate Hero type that was obviously a far-leftist, hyper-partisan, always acts like he's right. It was pretty clearly intended to mock you.

That being said, the PMs posted show that I had no intention of registering the account and with that, I have done nothing wrong related to this game.

*shrug*
Over my head. I don't follow forum affairs closely enough to catch on to these sorts of things. Life and all that stuff, ya know.

I know you had no intention of registering in Atlasia. That was never my point. You broke the ToS, are a detriment to this game and an embarrassment to this body and so it is fitting that this body impeach you. End of story as far as I am concerned.

Yet you embrace those who cheat the game, break the ToS, advocate burning entire cities, and embarrassed the Mideast region more than any other individual in Atlasian history (even MasterJedi!). End of story as far as I am concerned.

You have no case here. You like to cause problems, so you barge into the business of other regions. For your information, I have produced more legislation than any other Representative and even if impeached, will easily be re-elected. So I suggest this entire "issue" be dropped.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 02, 2009, 02:29:43 am
We have no grounds to remove Rep Hamilton.  He has violated no Northeast law that I know of, and the AG thus far has not prosecuted him for violating any federal law.  He's voted on 1 of the last 3 pieces of legislation, loosely defined.

It's ultimately up to the Northeast voters to decide whether to retain Rep. Hamilton this month.  As it should be.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 02, 2009, 06:58:36 am
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 02, 2009, 01:18:03 pm
Aye.

PS: Hamilton and Purple State: take it elsewhere.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 02, 2009, 08:49:11 pm
The Ayes are Six; the Nays are one. The Ayes Have it, the Bill has passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 02, 2009, 10:43:40 pm
Next bill?  I assume it's one of Rep. Hamilton's now that he's back?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 03, 2009, 05:56:12 am
Another bill on Governor's desk... :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on December 03, 2009, 10:51:47 am
Wait.. what did we just vote on? Sorry been busy getting some campaigns off the ground here, and found our next CJO.. so can you catch me up on what has to be signed. I'm really sorry, I promise things will go back to normal by Monday.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 03, 2009, 02:39:38 pm
Next bill to consider :

The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act

1. The Northeast Minimum Wage Act is hereby repealed.
2. The Northeast minimum wage shall be equivalent to the current Federal minimum wage.
3. The Northeast minimum wage shall increase and decrease concurrent to the Federal minimum wage.

Initially introduced by Rep. Hamilton and reintroduced by me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 02:53:38 pm
I would back this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 03, 2009, 03:07:05 pm
I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 03, 2009, 03:12:06 pm
I want assurances in this bill that employees will be protected, in case the federal wage lowers...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 03:13:18 pm
I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 03, 2009, 03:17:28 pm
I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 03:19:30 pm
I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 03, 2009, 03:27:56 pm
I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 03:37:40 pm
I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

The problem is, if you keep a high minimum wage, you are helping these oligopolies. Small business suffers because it isn't able to pay the wages and they go into a downward spiral until they go bust in many cases. If you want to help small business, a great aid to it would be to abolish or at least lower the minimum wage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 03:41:15 pm
This bill simply brings our region's minimum wage laws up to date with the federal law and makes certain we won't ever fall behind again. As a region of progress, we cannot allow our labor standards to appear less than the nation as a whole.

Antonio, you did not have permission to tamper with my legislation and I believe that a different bill is first in the queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 03:44:30 pm
The actual next bill is this:


Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Co-sponsored by Reps. Hamilton and Mr. Moderate (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103122.msg2197077#msg2197077)

Section A: Purpose
1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification
1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date

1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 03, 2009, 04:00:01 pm
I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

The problem is, if you keep a high minimum wage, you are helping these oligopolies. Small business suffers because it isn't able to pay the wages and they go into a downward spiral until they go bust in many cases. If you want to help small business, a great aid to it would be to abolish or at least lower the minimum wage.

I believe in a living wage. People need to be able to survive. A poor person helps no one. Maybe what I'm wanting is a more efficent minimum wage that won't bankrupt smaller companies, but won't allow big corporations to get off scot-free. Because you know Wal-Mart, nor McDonald's, nor anyone of the big corporations for that matter, do not hesitate to keep those wages as low as possible. Thes places need to be held accountable for that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 04:01:02 pm
The actual next bill is this:


Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Co-sponsored by Reps. Hamilton and Mr. Moderate (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103122.msg2197077#msg2197077)

Section A: Purpose
1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification
1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date

1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 03, 2009, 04:08:30 pm
LOL Nobody minds you, guy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 04:19:26 pm
I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

The problem is, if you keep a high minimum wage, you are helping these oligopolies. Small business suffers because it isn't able to pay the wages and they go into a downward spiral until they go bust in many cases. If you want to help small business, a great aid to it would be to abolish or at least lower the minimum wage.

I believe in a living wage. People need to be able to survive. A poor person helps no one. Maybe what I'm wanting is a more efficent minimum wage that won't bankrupt smaller companies, but won't allow big corporations to get off scot-free. Because you know Wal-Mart, nor McDonald's, nor anyone of the big corporations for that matter, do not hesitate to keep those wages as low as possible. Thes places need to be held accountable for that.

It would be very hard, if not impossible, to find such an equilibrium.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 04:20:03 pm
The actual next bill is this:


Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Co-sponsored by Reps. Hamilton and Mr. Moderate (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103122.msg2197077#msg2197077)

Section A: Purpose
1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification
1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date

1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 03, 2009, 04:25:51 pm
I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

The problem is, if you keep a high minimum wage, you are helping these oligopolies. Small business suffers because it isn't able to pay the wages and they go into a downward spiral until they go bust in many cases. If you want to help small business, a great aid to it would be to abolish or at least lower the minimum wage.

I believe in a living wage. People need to be able to survive. A poor person helps no one. Maybe what I'm wanting is a more efficent minimum wage that won't bankrupt smaller companies, but won't allow big corporations to get off scot-free. Because you know Wal-Mart, nor McDonald's, nor anyone of the big corporations for that matter, do not hesitate to keep those wages as low as possible. Thes places need to be held accountable for that.

It would be very hard, if not impossible, to find such an equilibrium.

Then I'd rather protect those that need protecting rather than helping massive corporations profit. You see how I stand?... I would like worker protection in cases of a lower federal wage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 04:26:41 pm
The actual next bill is this:


Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Co-sponsored by Reps. Hamilton and Mr. Moderate (http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103122.msg2197077#msg2197077)

Section A: Purpose
1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification
1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date

1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 04:27:47 pm
Stop it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 04:28:51 pm
Stop it.

Stop taking up Assembly space debating a bill that won't even be up this session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 03, 2009, 11:01:40 pm
Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Section A: Purpose
1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification
1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date
1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.

Sponsors: Reps. Mr. Moderate and Hamilton



The Questions is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

Either Hamilton or Mr. Moderate have the floor.

(Sorry about getting this up late, guys.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 11:10:19 pm
Well, as you can see, this is pretty straight forward. This was created to benefit those who have been hit hard by this economic downturn, by helping the unemployed keep their homes. This is a temporary aid package that is pro-family in nature and rooted in fairness, not handouts. It was the federal government's pathetic fiscal policies that created this poor economic environment and we shouldn't allow honest families to suffer because of that.

This bill has restrictions that prevent those who are not in dire need from taking advantage of the system and limitations regarding the amount of funding a family can receive. I believe this bill will successfully serve its purpose in keeping Northeastern families in their homes and hopefully help recreate the housing market in a stable way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on December 04, 2009, 01:47:37 pm
This bill is great and I would eagerly support it!



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 04, 2009, 02:03:07 pm
Seems like a good thing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 04, 2009, 11:30:40 pm
This is a good bill. I don't have any alterations or amendments to propose and I'm ready to support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 06, 2009, 03:56:33 am
Bump.

Now we can vote on this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 06, 2009, 07:45:31 pm
I open up a final vote on this Bill. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification

1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date

1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 06, 2009, 07:46:18 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 06, 2009, 07:53:33 pm
Present and abstaining.

I generally support the bill, but don't think people who signed contracts with an interest rate reset deserve a taxpayer bailout.  Those who prudently lived within their means and took out a responsible, fixed-rate mortgage to pay for their house shouldn't be subsidizing those who didn't.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 06, 2009, 07:54:44 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 06, 2009, 07:56:16 pm
Present and abstaining.

I generally support the bill, but don't think people who signed contracts with an interest rate reset deserve a taxpayer bailout.  Those who prudently lived within their means and took out a responsible, fixed-rate mortgage to pay for their house shouldn't be subsidizing those who didn't.

Once they get booted out of their homes they will likely be living in public housing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 06, 2009, 08:05:40 pm
Present and abstaining.

I generally support the bill, but don't think people who signed contracts with an interest rate reset deserve a taxpayer bailout.  Those who prudently lived within their means and took out a responsible, fixed-rate mortgage to pay for their house shouldn't be subsidizing those who didn't.

Once they get booted out of their homes they will likely be living in public housing.

Renting private housing, more likely - which is what they were essentially doing when they took out no-money-down, interest-only or teaser rate loans in the first place.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 06, 2009, 08:08:12 pm
Present and abstaining.

I generally support the bill, but don't think people who signed contracts with an interest rate reset deserve a taxpayer bailout.  Those who prudently lived within their means and took out a responsible, fixed-rate mortgage to pay for their house shouldn't be subsidizing those who didn't.

Once they get booted out of their homes they will likely be living in public housing.

Renting private housing, more likely - which is what they were essentially doing when they took out no-money-down, interest-only or teaser rate loans in the first place.

Order!

The Gentlemen will suspend.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 06, 2009, 08:56:43 pm
Nay.

I support the Bill, except for Section B(1)(c)(2).

Due to the increase in unemployment, I can understand the need to support recently unemployed citizens in getting through these difficult times, but I fear that this Bill will lead to interest rate rises as lending companies see a reduced risk of default for borrowers whose repayments have increased by 20% compared to borrowers whose repayments have increased by, for example, 18%.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 07, 2009, 05:49:03 am
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 07, 2009, 06:56:23 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 07, 2009, 08:41:02 pm
The Ayes are three, the Nays are two, with one abstention. The Ayes have it.

I hereby present this Bill to the Governor for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 08, 2009, 11:54:13 am
Yikes.  Sorry folks, been really busy lately (and there's been a work crackdown on Internets.)

Anyway, Aye for the record.  I'm very glad to see this bill got passed—I believe it will do a lot of good to reassure mortgage lenders, homeowners, and the housing market in general by protecting those who face the loss of their home because of the economy, and not because of the kind of greed that caused this mess.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 08, 2009, 12:32:45 pm
Next bill ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 02:11:58 pm

Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating trees for commercial purposes) shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. The acreage of forestry shall not be allowed below 35 million acres at any given point in time.

3. Forestry on public or private lands by any organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.

4. Any company or organization removing trees for commercial use is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth.

5. A 5% tax credit is available to any company/organization that prove compliant with the above regulations and publicly commit to sustainable forestry and the preservation of Northeastern biodiversity.

Section C: Non-compliance


1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 08, 2009, 03:10:15 pm
You haven't the authority to do that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 03:14:23 pm
Stop being such a damn jerk all the time, you worthless hack. I`m letting people read the bill here so they don`t have to wait for Barnes to know what is next. You did the same thing once, except that bill you posted wasn`t even the one we were supposed to debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 08, 2009, 05:56:16 pm

Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating trees for commercial purposes) shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. The acreage of forestry shall not be allowed below 35 million acres at any given point in time.

3. Forestry on public or private lands by any organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.

4. Any company or organization removing trees for commercial use is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth.

5. A 5% tax credit is available to any company/organization that prove compliant with the above regulations and publicly commit to sustainable forestry and the preservation of Northeastern biodiversity.

Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.

Sponsor: Rep. Hamilton

The Questions is, shall the Bill be Considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative Hamilton, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 05:59:58 pm
The bill is straight forward, we need to protect our natural environment here in the Northeast. I don't really have much to comment on this, but I would like to let the hardcore capitalists know that this is a pro-business bill. If we are going to remain productive, natural resources must be managed at sustainable levels. If we eliminate our forests at the current rate without adequate replenishment, pretty soon we will be a treeless region. How will we capitalize then? The Northeast would lose jobs... We would lose natives species... We would lose our beautiful natural landscape... Is it worth it? If we implement sustainable policies, we will be able to make use of what nature has given us for as long as we dedicate ourselves to responsible policies.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 08, 2009, 07:28:02 pm
Support this, but Section C should be clarified to define "estimated damage" - perhaps the percentage of additional land cleared and not replenished should be factored into the profits made and that would be the cost of the fine. For example, if the company cleared a total of 100 hectares and only replenished 95 hectares, and earned in that time a total profit of $5 million, the fine would work out at double 5% of the total profits of $5,000,000, which would be $500,000 worth of fines. Perhaps also setting a minimum "per hectare" value of a fine, to prevent companies using creative accounting to post a loss in years in which they over-clear.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 08, 2009, 08:15:58 pm
Support this, but Section C should be clarified to define "estimated damage" - perhaps the percentage of additional land cleared and not replenished should be factored into the profits made and that would be the cost of the fine. For example, if the company cleared a total of 100 hectares and only replenished 95 hectares, and earned in that time a total profit of $5 million, the fine would work out at double 5% of the total profits of $5,000,000, which would be $500,000 worth of fines. Perhaps also setting a minimum "per hectare" value of a fine, to prevent companies using creative accounting to post a loss in years in which they over-clear.

That'd be something worth adding. At least it wouldn't make things so open to cheating.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 08:20:16 pm
What would suffice as a minimum fine per hectare?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 08, 2009, 08:23:59 pm
What would suffice as a minimum fine per hectare?

Should depend on the size of the business... Say for small businesses 500 dollars, and on up..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 08, 2009, 09:34:46 pm
The bill is straight forward, we need to protect our natural environment here in the Northeast. I don't really have much to comment on this, but I would like to let the hardcore capitalists know that this is a pro-business bill. If we are going to remain productive, natural resources must be managed at sustainable levels. If we eliminate our forests at the current rate without adequate replenishment, pretty soon we will be a treeless region. How will we capitalize then? The Northeast would lose jobs... We would lose natives species... We would lose our beautiful natural landscape... Is it worth it? If we implement sustainable policies, we will be able to make use of what nature has given us for as long as we dedicate ourselves to responsible policies.

I rise in opposition to this bill, especially with respect to restrictions placed on private land.

It is often said that the Northeast has more trees today than we have ever had before.  While that's likely true, it is of no doubt that the Northeast has more trees today than we had at the beginning of the last century.  This is despite the fact that much of our forests are privately owned, unlike out west.

Or is it BECAUSE of that fact?  Private tree farmers who own the land have every incentive to treat their trees with the utmost of respect.  Overcutting today will directly lead to lower expected profits tomorrow - and a declining company value.

I simply don't know why we need heavy handed regulation of something that's working.  There is no danger of the Northeast becoming a treeless region.  It hasn't been heading in that direction for 100 years.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 08, 2009, 09:44:51 pm
I simply don't know why we need heavy handed regulation of something that's working.  There is no danger of the Northeast becoming a treeless region.  It hasn't been heading in that direction for 100 years.

In rural western PA there is a great deal of strip mining and heavy handed lumbering going on. Such as some places are looking completely bare. There's no reason to believe a trend like that would not continue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 09:49:36 pm
cinyc, do you have statistics to back those claims up? Pardon if I come across as rude, but I did a lot of research about forestry in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire to come up with the minimum amount of acreage required so I've seen quite a bit of information on the subject. I'm just wondering what your sources might be.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 08, 2009, 10:30:27 pm
Yup.

New York: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/42065.html
Northeast: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1016/is_n5-6_v97/ai_10737450/?tag=content;col1
Hardwood trees, generally, which are the type that mainly grows in the NE: http://www.hardwoodinfo.com/articles/view/135
General, US: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 10:42:53 pm
In that case, I might be able to drop the restrictions on private lands. Let me know what you guys think.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 08, 2009, 11:18:56 pm
In rural western PA there is a great deal of strip mining and heavy handed lumbering going on. Such as some places are looking completely bare. There's no reason to believe a trend like that would not continue.

According to Pennsylvania Department of Conservation’s Natural Resources (http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/PA_Forests_2004.pdf), there was no significant net change in PA forest acreage from 1989 to 2004.  663,000 acres were lost, but 617,500 acres were gained.  That's a net loss of 45,500 acres over 15 years - about 3000 acres a year - which is hardly significant when combined with reported gains in the rest of the Northeast or the significant increases earlier in the 20th century.  

The losses was largely due to residential and industrial development, not strip mining or tree farming.  The majority of the gains came from reclaimed agricultural lands.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 08, 2009, 11:54:29 pm
The Bill should only relate to forestry on public land. I think the regulation of the clearing of public forest is fine, after all it is a Regional asset and the Regional government should be able to regulate that, however the regulation of private forestry is unnecessary.

Indeed, as the Bill currently reads, the definition of forestry ("the clearing or elimination of trees for commercial purposes") could possibly result in a person who chops down a tree in their backyard and then sells it for firewood being fined (perhaps the plural may mean they'd only be prosecuted in the case of two or more trees, but regardless, the definition needs to be tightened and I think should only include forestry on public land).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 11:57:23 pm
Okay, I'm amending this to strike "or private" from the language of clause 3


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 09, 2009, 12:11:15 am
In rural western PA there is a great deal of strip mining and heavy handed lumbering going on. Such as some places are looking completely bare. There's no reason to believe a trend like that would not continue.

According to Pennsylvania Department of Conservation’s Natural Resources (http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/PA_Forests_2004.pdf), there was no significant net change in PA forest acreage from 1989 to 2004.  663,000 acres were lost, but 617,500 acres were gained.  That's a net loss of 45,500 acres over 15 years - about 3000 acres a year - which is hardly significant when combined with reported gains in the rest of the Northeast or the significant increases earlier in the 20th century.  

The losses was largely due to residential and industrial development, not strip mining or tree farming.  The majority of the gains came from reclaimed agricultural lands.

Really? Cause that's all you see around here...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 12:15:26 am
I'll add a Section D, as well

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 09, 2009, 12:16:04 am
That's not going to be sufficient.  Additional changes will have to be made to the bill because the Northeast isn't regulating of private lands.  For example (subject to whatever changes are made to Section C):

Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than 10 trees for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. The acreage of forestry shall not be allowed below 35 million acres at any given point in time.  (Note: I don't know why we need this when we determine how much forestland we own and the uses thereof)

2.3. Forestry on Northeast public or private lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.

34. Any company or organization removing more than 10 trees from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth.  [Question: Forever?  Or some set period]

5. A 5% tax credit is available to any company/organization that prove compliant with the above regulations and publicly commit to sustainable forestry and the preservation of Northeastern biodiversity. (Note: I don't know why we'd need to give a credit to companies we're letting cut on public land)

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to 10 trees per year for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 12:19:56 am
I can accept that, but I still wish to see my Section D added.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 09, 2009, 12:20:16 am
I'll add a Section D, as well

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners.

That becomes a potential problem when someone wants to build a power line or something to a town that needs it.  We don't have many statewide referenda in New York - but when we do, it's usually granting an exemption of some sort for a trade of public land for private land in Adirondack Park.  At a minimum, we need to allow swaps of equal value.

What about leases?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 12:21:59 am
Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 09, 2009, 12:22:30 am
Really? Cause that's all you see around here...

I've provided a link backing up my facts.  The dates of the study are what they are: 1989-2004.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 12:27:16 am
New bill:


Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than 10 trees for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. Forestry on Northeast public lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.

3. Any company or organization removing more than 10 trees from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth.  

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to 10 trees per year for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 09, 2009, 12:34:18 am
Really? Cause that's all you see around here...

I've provided a link backing up my facts.  The dates of the study are what they are: 1989-2004.

Yeah, I see that... Ok, then... However, I've not seen much residential or industrial deforestation recently. It's been either for strip mining or lumber... Just first hand experience at least around here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 09, 2009, 08:08:40 am
I don't care much for requiring companies to guarantee the survivability of replaced forests. It seems unusually burdensome considering there's no time attached. Maybe amend to say that it needs to be guaranteed for a year?

Also, how many people chop trees for firewood on PUBLIC land, currently? I wouldn't have thought that to be legal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 09, 2009, 02:55:46 pm
Making an Amendment to Section B Number 3...



Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than 10 trees for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. Forestry on Northeast public lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.

3. Any company or organization removing more than 10 trees from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth For two calender years.

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to 10 trees per year for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 03:03:12 pm
two years, please. one-year old trees aren't worth much.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 09, 2009, 05:12:58 pm
Also, how many people chop trees for firewood on PUBLIC land, currently? I wouldn't have thought that to be legal.

It's perfectly legal (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/lassen/passes/) to chop trees for on-site campfires with a free permit in some national forests (and perhaps even without a permit in others), and legal to chop trees for firewood or other off-site personal use with a permit - usually for $10 per cord.    You can even cut down a Christmas tree with a permit in some national forests.

Assuming we have similar regulations, it would be unreasonable to force small users to plant replacement trees.

Yeah, I see that... Ok, then... However, I've not seen much residential or industrial deforestation recently. It's been either for strip mining or lumber... Just first hand experience at least around here.

You're talking about the western part of the state, where mining is more prevalent.  A lot of the lost forests lost to urbanizatiion are likely in new exurban areas in the Poconos and Philadelphia area.  There may be offsetting gains in SW PA, with farmland converted to forests and old strip mines being reforested.
-------

I have one other issue with the current legislation.  I'm not sure that it should be applied to existing leases.  If current leases don't include a reforestation provision, I don't see how we can force leaseholders to replant.  The contracts were priced without that extra cost in mind.  If we unilaterally change contract terms on a whim, we'll get less money than we otherwise would  for leases in the future.  Nobody will trust us.  And it's arguably unconstitutional - though possibly not.

I'll have to mark up an amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 05:14:28 pm
Okay, if you amend that, I will likely accept it as friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 09, 2009, 10:52:52 pm
Here's my crack at that:

Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that certain current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than 10 trees two cords of wood for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. Forestry on Northeast public lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.  This section shall not apply to any company or organization which has entered into any lease or other right to remove trees from public land on or before December 21, 2009.

3. Any company or organization removing more than 10 trees two cords of wood from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use under any permit issued after December 21, 2009 is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth for two calendar years.

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to 10 trees per year  two cords of wood for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.

5. Nothing in this Act shall supercede the terms of any lease, conveyance or similar arrangement, or any permit issued before December 21, 2009 for the duration of such lease, conveyance, arrangement or permit.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.
--------
Note - I picked December 21 as the effective date because this law will have to be signed into law or vetoed before then, as the next session of the Assembly meets on that date.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 10:54:27 pm
These changes are acceptable to me; consider them friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 09, 2009, 11:10:09 pm
We've made a good bill, folks...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 10, 2009, 04:26:11 am
Seems fair enough.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 04:27:00 am
Well, I will be very proud of all of us if we can pass this unanimously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on December 10, 2009, 07:46:46 am
Great idea, nicely worded bill, I'm aboard for sure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 10, 2009, 05:19:50 pm
Do you mind if we change "is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio." to "is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at at least a 1:1 ratio?

We shouldn't object if someone wants to plant more trees - or prohibit them from doing so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 05:21:24 pm
Yes, that is acceptable.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 05:21:59 pm
Btw, can someone help me figure out how to fix Section C?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 10, 2009, 08:58:07 pm
Btw, can someone help me figure out how to fix Section C?

Something along the lines of "Where the value of an acre of timber is calculated by dividing the revenue received by the company divided by the number of acres cleared."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 10, 2009, 09:00:15 pm
Btw, can someone help me figure out how to fix Section C?
Perhaps:

Any company/ or organization found violating the terms of this Act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice five times the amount of the estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests cost of replacing the removed trees.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 10, 2009, 09:08:19 pm
Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 09:19:38 pm
I like cinyc's amendment, but five times sounds like a really hefty fine. Can I get the opinion of a couple other Reps?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 10, 2009, 09:27:51 pm
I like cinyc's amendment, but five times sounds like a really hefty fine. Can I get the opinion of a couple other Reps?

Why not compromise and say three times?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on December 10, 2009, 09:28:27 pm
Can I get the opinion of-

Me? Ok, the companies that violate the Act will be dicks so a hefty fine is a good fine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 09:31:35 pm
Can I get the opinion of-

Me? Ok, the companies that violate the Act will be dicks so a hefty fine is a good fine.

That is true.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 10, 2009, 09:43:39 pm
This Bill doesn't give any incentive to replace trees, it only waves a big stick (pun unintentional) at companies that don't replace the trees. Therefore an exceptionally hefty punishment provides a bigger stick and I don't have a problem with that.

We should perhaps specify the tree density of an acre of trees for replacement purposes - ie, the minimum number of trees that need to be planted to replace an acre that is cleared.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 09:44:49 pm
That is a great point. I suppose I will have to do a bit of research to come up with a fair rate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 10, 2009, 11:11:12 pm
I like cinyc's amendment, but five times sounds like a really hefty fine. Can I get the opinion of a couple other Reps?

I'm net wedded to 5 times.  It was just a first cut.  It has to be higher than the replacement cost - at least double - so that it's punitive.  How much higher is open to debate.  Triple works too.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 12, 2009, 01:21:20 pm
Bump.

Could Mr Senator-to-be not forget he's also Northeast Lt Gov. and open a final vote on this bill ? :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 12, 2009, 09:28:06 pm
Bump.

Could Mr Senator-to-be not forget he's also Northeast Lt Gov. and open a final vote on this bill ? :)

We still haven't agreed on the penalty.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 12, 2009, 09:31:35 pm
Give me like 30 minutes and I will have my changes ready :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 12, 2009, 09:58:43 pm
Give me like 30 minutes and I will have my changes ready :)

Yeah, you guys have done great work on this, don't feel rushed by me, I'm just waiting on a final Bill. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 13, 2009, 05:32:04 am
The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 13, 2009, 11:45:43 am
The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.

Well, I extended the period, because there wasn't a full Bill even written up.

Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.

But, today is the last day.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 13, 2009, 01:07:14 pm
The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.

Well, I extended the period, because there wasn't a full Bill even written up.

Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.

But, today is the last day.

Well, you hadn't the authority to do, but anyways it doesn't matter... Just don't do again, please.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 13, 2009, 11:33:41 pm
Somebody, please, show me a final version of this thing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 14, 2009, 01:23:45 am
The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.

Well, I extended the period, because there wasn't a full Bill even written up.

Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.

But, today is the last day.

Well, you hadn't the authority to do, but anyways it doesn't matter... Just don't do again, please.

Actually, my friend, as presiding officer, he has the right to extend the debate period because the bill was still being debated upon. Don't get your knickers in a twist.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 14, 2009, 01:37:29 am
The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.

Well, I extended the period, because there wasn't a full Bill even written up.

Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.

But, today is the last day.

Well, you hadn't the authority to do, but anyways it doesn't matter... Just don't do again, please.

Actually, my friend, as presiding officer, he has the right to extend the debate period because the bill was still being debated upon. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

Precisely, and anyone who doesn't agree with his ruling as Presiding Officer has the ability to move the procedural motion: "That - The Chair's Ruling be dissented from." Then everyone can vote on it, but I think the Lt Governor has accurately determined the will of the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 14, 2009, 06:32:33 am
My purpose is not to bother anyone, but just to prevent the Assembly from getting inactive.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 14, 2009, 11:39:48 am
Bump.

If we don't go through Hamilton's blatant will to filibuster the Assembly, I'm going to sue someone or something.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 14, 2009, 02:05:38 pm
Bump.

If we don't go through Hamilton's blatant will to filibuster the Assembly, I'm going to sue someone or something.

I don't think it's a blatant filibuster.  I think Hamilton may have been placed on mod review again.

If we don't hear from Hamilton before 6PM today, perhaps we should hold two separate votes: The first on an amendment to the penalty provisions as follows:

Quote
Any company or organization found violating the terms of this Act shall be subject to a fine of no less than three times the cost of replacing any removed trees not replaced.

Then, on the bill itself, which currently reads:

Quote
Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that certain current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than two cords of wood for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. Forestry on Northeast public lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.  This section shall not apply to any company or organization which has entered into any lease or other right to remove trees from public land on or before December 21, 2009.

3. Any company or organization removing more than two cords of wood from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use under any permit issued after December 21, 2009 is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at at least a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth for two calendar years.

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to two cords of wood per year for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.

5. Nothing in this Act shall supercede the terms of any lease, conveyance or similar arrangement, or any permit issued before December 21, 2009 for the duration of such lease, conveyance, arrangement or permit.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 14, 2009, 02:11:12 pm
Bump.

If we don't go through Hamilton's blatant will to filibuster the Assembly, I'm going to sue someone or something.

I don't think it's a blatant filibuster.  I think Hamilton may have been placed on mod review again.

Why ? ???


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 14, 2009, 02:20:48 pm
Bump.

If we don't go through Hamilton's blatant will to filibuster the Assembly, I'm going to sue someone or something.

I don't think it's a blatant filibuster.  I think Hamilton may have been placed on mod review again.

Why ? ???

I have no clue.  It was mentioned on one other thread - I think the Examiner results thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 14, 2009, 04:39:44 pm
Alright, I open up a vote on this Amendment:
Quote
Any company or organization found violating the terms of this Act shall be subject to a fine of no less than three times the cost of replacing any removed trees not replaced.

Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 14, 2009, 04:57:24 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 14, 2009, 04:58:46 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 14, 2009, 06:16:14 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 14, 2009, 09:01:27 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 14, 2009, 09:14:53 pm
I won't be around here much, tomorrow. So Smid can close the vote on the Amendment, and then open a final vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 14, 2009, 11:22:04 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 15, 2009, 12:26:09 am
I won't be around here much, tomorrow. So Smid can close the vote on the Amendment, and then open a final vote.

No worries.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 15, 2009, 02:22:05 am
Aye

Quote
Any company or organization found violating the terms of this Act shall be subject to a fine of no less than three times the cost of replacing any removed trees not replaced.

Damn, we blocked the legislative work for 3 days for this !!! :o


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 15, 2009, 05:03:53 pm

Damn, we blocked the legislative work for 3 days for this !!! :o

It wasn't blocked so much as there were difficulties with getting the bill to the Lt. Gov. because Hamilton went and got himself under mod review again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 15, 2009, 10:05:18 pm
The Ayes are Five, the Nays are One. The Amendment is Adopted.

I open up a final vote on this bill. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that certain current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than two cords of wood for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. Forestry on Northeast public lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.  This section shall not apply to any company or organization which has entered into any lease or other right to remove trees from public land on or before December 21, 2009.

3. Any company or organization removing more than two cords of wood from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use under any permit issued after December 21, 2009 is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at at least a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth for two calendar years.

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to two cords of wood per year for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.

5. Nothing in this Act shall supercede the terms of any lease, conveyance or similar arrangement, or any permit issued before December 21, 2009 for the duration of such lease, conveyance, arrangement or permit.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company or organization found violating the terms of this Act shall be subject to a fine of no less than three times the cost of replacing any removed trees not replaced.

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 15, 2009, 10:06:39 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 15, 2009, 10:07:43 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 15, 2009, 11:42:04 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 16, 2009, 08:18:26 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 16, 2009, 09:24:54 am
ok sure


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 16, 2009, 01:44:04 pm
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 16, 2009, 04:17:02 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 16, 2009, 10:31:30 pm
The Ayes are six, and there is one abstention. The Ayes have it.

I hereby transmit this Bill to the Governor for his signature, or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 16, 2009, 10:37:50 pm
The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act

1. The Northeast Minimum Wage Act is hereby repealed.
2. The Northeast minimum wage shall be equivalent to the current Federal minimum wage.
3. The Northeast minimum wage shall increase and decrease concurrent to the Federal minimum wage.

Sponsors: Reps. Hamilton

The question is, shall the Bill be considered? Those in favor, say "Aye; those opposed "No".

The Ayes have it.

Representative Hamilton has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 16, 2009, 10:48:33 pm
The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act

1. The Northeast Minimum Wage Act is hereby repealed.
2. The Northeast minimum wage shall be equivalent to the current Federal minimum wage.
3. The Northeast minimum wage shall increase and decrease concurrent to the Federal minimum wage.

Sponsors: Reps. Hamilton and Antonio V

The question is, shall the Bill be considered? Those in favor, say "Aye; those opposed "No".

The Ayes have it.

Either Hamilton, or Antonio, have the floor.

Per the request of Representative Hamilton, Antonio's name is removed as cosponsor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 16, 2009, 11:01:11 pm
Our regional minimum wage has been set below federal standards. This rectifies that problem and ensures it doesn't happen ever again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 16, 2009, 11:15:20 pm
This is straightforward enough that, unless there are any objections, we should just move on to the final vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 17, 2009, 12:24:55 am
This is straightforward enough that, unless there are any objections, we should just move on to the final vote.

Why should we let the Atlasian federal government set our minimum wage?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 17, 2009, 01:12:57 am
This is straightforward enough that, unless there are any objections, we should just move on to the final vote.

Why should we let the Atlasian federal government set our minimum wage?

More importantly, what is the current wage set by the government?

Shame I was rather bored with the political process otherwise, if I were still a Representative this item of legislation would have had my backing. Regardless, I must say to all members of the Assembly I commend you all on your collective efforts :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 17, 2009, 02:52:36 am
This is straightforward enough that, unless there are any objections, we should just move on to the final vote.

Why should we let the Atlasian federal government set our minimum wage?

More importantly, what is the current wage set by the government?

Shame I was rather bored with the political process otherwise, if I were still a Representative this item of legislation would have had my backing. Regardless, I must say to all members of the Assembly I commend you all on your collective efforts :)

Run again!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 17, 2009, 04:03:25 am
I oppose the minimum wage and I oppose having it raised to federal levels.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 17, 2009, 10:31:42 am
Could the sponsor please provide some brief background to the lazier members: What is the current (but, of course, defunct) Northeast minimum wage?  What is the current federal minimum wage that this bill seeks to match?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 17, 2009, 01:18:34 pm
I strongly support this initiative to raise the minimum wage on a reasonable level.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 17, 2009, 09:12:48 pm
I strongly support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 17, 2009, 10:10:31 pm
Northeast minimum wage is $6.75
Federal minimum wage is set to increase to $8.50 incrementally by the end of fiscal year 2010.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 19, 2009, 09:00:22 am
Is the Lt Governorship currently vacant ?
It'd be nice to have a final vote of this bill before the beginning of the new session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 19, 2009, 11:30:24 am
No, it isn't vacant.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 19, 2009, 11:52:14 am
So, may Barnes please open the vote ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 19, 2009, 12:09:40 pm
I hereby open up a final vote on this Bill. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act

1. The Northeast Minimum Wage Act is hereby repealed.
2. The Northeast minimum wage shall be equivalent to the current Federal minimum wage.
3. The Northeast minimum wage shall increase and decrease concurrent to the Federal minimum wage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 19, 2009, 12:14:07 pm
On a rethink, I vote Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 19, 2009, 12:27:11 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 19, 2009, 02:04:36 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 19, 2009, 03:04:29 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 19, 2009, 04:17:49 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 20, 2009, 12:54:53 pm
The Ayes are for; the Nays are one. The Ayes have it, the Bill has passed.


Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

Sponsor: Rep. Hamilton

The question is whether the Bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Reprenetative Alexander Hamilton, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 01:25:42 pm
I'm not going to make a speech but I am open to any questions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 20, 2009, 01:26:38 pm
As long as this bill doesn't enforce affirmative action, I'm willing to back it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 01:32:11 pm
As long as this bill doesn't enforce affirmative action, I'm willing to back it.

Does it have any provisions that even begin to hint at affirmative action?

Does anything think that I, of all people, would write a bill in favor of affirmative action?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 20, 2009, 02:01:29 pm
This bill has my full support.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2009, 02:03:45 pm
With the First Assembly adjourning for good tonight, there will not be enough time to consider this legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 20, 2009, 02:07:31 pm
With the First Assembly adjourning for good tonight, there will not be enough time to consider this legislation.

Well, we have Monday to debate, also. The new term begins on Tuesday.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 02:09:03 pm
Well, if we can open a final vote ASAP, then we can get this through. I don't think there are many "decisions" to be made on whether or not to support this legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 20, 2009, 02:11:08 pm
Is it possible to have a special motion to shorten the debate time ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 20, 2009, 02:13:01 pm
Is it possible to have a special motion to shorten the debate time ?

Yep.

I take that as a motion. Under Extraordinary Circumstances, I Herby move the debate time to end at 12:00 Midnight. We will proceed with a vote then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 02:14:34 pm
Awesome. Also, I'd like to ask my fellow Representatives if they would be interested in a two-bill floor next session. As my final term, I certainly have a lot of proposals, but I don't want to flood the queue and stop other Reps from introducing. I think we will have enough to debate two bills at once next session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 20, 2009, 02:16:30 pm
I think it would be hard for most of us to follow 2 bills simultaneously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 02:17:20 pm
I think it would be hard for most of us to follow 2 bills simultaneously.

It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 20, 2009, 02:27:16 pm
It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.

Precisely. Do you think it would be easier for them to follow twice at the same time ?
As for me, I'd personally have no problem with this, but people like Fezzy, Mr Moderate, Dr Cynic or Smid would have difficulties to take part in debates in those conditions. Obviously, people, tell me if I'm wrong. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 02:28:24 pm
It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.

Precisely. Do you think it would be easier for them to follow twice at the same time ?
As for me, I'd personally have no problem with this, but people like Fezzy, Mr Moderate, Dr Cynic or Smid would have difficulties to take part in debates in those conditions. Obviously, people, tell me if I'm wrong. ;)

And so because of their inactivity, the Assembly's work should suffer? I should hope not. Imagine if the US Senate worked revolved around Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd's ability to participate. Um... Yeah.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 20, 2009, 02:34:22 pm
It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.

Precisely. Do you think it would be easier for them to follow twice at the same time ?
As for me, I'd personally have no problem with this, but people like Fezzy, Mr Moderate, Dr Cynic or Smid would have difficulties to take part in debates in those conditions. Obviously, people, tell me if I'm wrong. ;)

And so because of their inactivity, the Assembly's work should suffer? I should hope not. Imagine if the US Senate worked revolved around Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd's ability to participate. Um... Yeah.

Only because they're not as involved as us, it doesn't mean they are inactive. And I'd like that they remain able to take part into debates, as they currently do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 02:35:48 pm
It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.

Precisely. Do you think it would be easier for them to follow twice at the same time ?
As for me, I'd personally have no problem with this, but people like Fezzy, Mr Moderate, Dr Cynic or Smid would have difficulties to take part in debates in those conditions. Obviously, people, tell me if I'm wrong. ;)

And so because of their inactivity, the Assembly's work should suffer? I should hope not. Imagine if the US Senate worked revolved around Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd's ability to participate. Um... Yeah.

Only because they're not as involved as us, it doesn't mean they are inactive. And I'd like that they remain able to take part into debates, as they currently do.

Yes, but it is my opinion that we can get ore work done if we have two bills on the floor at once. Some bills take longer to debate, aand some need very little. I think it would be rude of me, or anyone else, to flood the queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 20, 2009, 02:50:43 pm
It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.

Precisely. Do you think it would be easier for them to follow twice at the same time ?
As for me, I'd personally have no problem with this, but people like Fezzy, Mr Moderate, Dr Cynic or Smid would have difficulties to take part in debates in those conditions. Obviously, people, tell me if I'm wrong. ;)

And so because of their inactivity, the Assembly's work should suffer? I should hope not. Imagine if the US Senate worked revolved around Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd's ability to participate. Um... Yeah.

Only because they're not as involved as us, it doesn't mean they are inactive. And I'd like that they remain able to take part into debates, as they currently do.

Yes, but it is my opinion that we can get ore work done if we have two bills on the floor at once. Some bills take longer to debate, aand some need very little. I think it would be rude of me, or anyone else, to flood the queue.

Well, I'm still undecided on this. I guess I will wait t hear the others' opinion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2009, 03:21:30 pm
It's a bad idea.  It's impossible to follow any discussion of two bills simultaneously when we only have one thread for all legislative business.  Things get muddled.  Votes get lost.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 20, 2009, 05:08:30 pm
It's a bad idea.  It's impossible to follow any discussion of two bills simultaneously when we only have one thread for all legislative business.  Things get muddled.  Votes get lost.

I'm reassured that someone agress with me. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2009, 06:00:36 pm
Well, we have Monday to debate, also. The new term begins on Tuesday.

Why?  The election ends tonight.

Is it possible to have a special motion to shorten the debate time ?

Yep.

I take that as a motion. Under Extraordinary Circumstances, I Herby move the debate time to end at 12:00 Midnight. We will proceed with a vote then.

I object.  Speeding consideration of a bill without a vote violates the SOAP.  We can vote to cut off debate, but that vote must be held open for 24 hours.

The next Assembly should take up this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 20, 2009, 06:23:44 pm
It's a bad idea.  It's impossible to follow any discussion of two bills simultaneously when we only have one thread for all legislative business.  Things get muddled.  Votes get lost.

I agree with this. One thing at a time. There's no reason really to throw two, three or four bills out at once.

I also think it's unfair to list me as inactive. I'm here when I'm home. I have a demanding work schedule that takes up a great deal of my time, but I'm always active here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 20, 2009, 07:43:19 pm
Well, we have Monday to debate, also. The new term begins on Tuesday.

Why?  The election ends tonight.

Is it possible to have a special motion to shorten the debate time ?

Yep.

I take that as a motion. Under Extraordinary Circumstances, I Herby move the debate time to end at 12:00 Midnight. We will proceed with a vote then.

I object.  Speeding consideration of a bill without a vote violates the SOAP.  We can vote to cut off debate, but that vote must be held open for 24 hours.

The next Assembly should take up this bill.

The Constitution of the NE stipulates that Terms begging on the first Tuesday following the election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2009, 09:36:38 pm
The Constitution of the NE stipulates that Terms begging on the first Tuesday following the election.

True.

I still object to holding this vote tonight, as it violates the SOAP.  Even if the vote starts at midnight, the Governor can't sign it until Tuesday, after the new Assembly is in session.  Do we want to create a constitutional crisis should he veto it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 09:38:28 pm
The Constitution of the NE stipulates that Terms begging on the first Tuesday following the election.

True.

I still object to holding this vote tonight, as it violates the SOAP.  Even if the vote starts at midnight, the Governor can't sign it until Tuesday, after the new Assembly is in session.  Do we want to create a constitutional crisis should he veto it?

Yes. It'll spice things up, give our lazy CJO something else to do, and hopefully fix the ambiguity in the Constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 21, 2009, 02:41:30 am
I open up a final vote on this Bill. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 02:43:56 am
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 21, 2009, 02:47:16 am
I once again object to this bill being brought to the floor before the end of the non-waived 48-hour debate period.

If forced to vote, I vote nay.  This legislation is unnecessary, as discrimination is prohibited under the Atlasian and Northeast Constitutions.  Section 2 is particularly troubling.  One successfully litigated sexual harassment or racial discrimination complaint against a rogue manager - even before a lowly administrative agency - could theoretically cause contracts to be canceled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 21, 2009, 02:50:19 am
I once again object to this bill being brought to the floor before the end of the non-waived 48-hour debate period.

Objection noted.

Do you wish to formally challenge the vote?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 02:53:25 am
Alright, I'm taking cinyc's objection as a good excuse to amend this bill.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts for a three-year period to any company or organization which is found to repeatedly discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 02:54:30 am
I still wish to see a final vote before the session ends. It's pretty straight forward and no need to cause even more work for next session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 21, 2009, 03:17:53 am
I once again object to this bill being brought to the floor before the end of the non-waived 48-hour debate period.

Objection noted.

Do you wish to formally challenge the vote?

Yes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 21, 2009, 08:48:41 am
What the hell is happening right now ? Are we still debating or is the vote begun ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 21, 2009, 11:43:03 am
Indeed, should debate be reopened for the bill, I would like to see it amended, changing "gender" to "gender identity."

Anyway, with response to us "more casual" posters:
As many of you know, I was just kinda thrust into the Assembly by our kind governor after making a career of legislating in the "big boy" Senate (and soon after, the presidency). Things are done a bit differently there. More bills, longer debate.

I understand there is a desire to have fast paced action here, but the number of people who are addicted to this forum are limited. Some of us have great legislation or debate points to offer, but simply don't get around to it when a bill can be almost entirely finalized before we even see it. I generally don't get to check this forum during the weekends, which can cause me to miss debates and votes in their entirety.

A possible solution to this would be to take up this "two bills at the same time" idea, while simultaneously doubling the amount of time spent debating and voting on each. That way, you leave people like myself more time to participate while still moving along the business of the Assembly at the bill-per-day rate as before.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 21, 2009, 11:47:07 am
What the hell is happening right now ? Are we still debating or is the vote begun ?

cinyc protested the vote on the grounds that the SOAP couldn't be suspended voluntarily.

I have to agree with him, there will be no time for another vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 12:13:42 pm
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 21, 2009, 12:14:26 pm
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

Well, then someone needs to propose an Amendment to the SOAP at the start of the new Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 21, 2009, 01:05:15 pm
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 01:31:04 pm
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.

Um, no, it will result in better legislation and more legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 21, 2009, 01:38:50 pm
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.

Um, no, it will result in better legislation and more legislation.

It will result in more confusion and longer debates.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 01:39:16 pm
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.

Um, no, it will result in better legislation and more legislation.

It will result in more confusion and longer debates.

You'd have to be illiterate to get confused.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 21, 2009, 01:53:47 pm
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.

Um, no, it will result in better legislation and more legislation.

It will result in more confusion and longer debates.

You'd have to be illiterate to get confused.

Please listen to what said Mr Moderate and Dr Cynic. They explained it better than me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 02:09:23 pm
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.

Um, no, it will result in better legislation and more legislation.

It will result in more confusion and longer debates.

You'd have to be illiterate to get confused.

Please listen to what said Mr Moderate and Dr Cynic. They explained it better than me.

read the bolded


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 21, 2009, 07:13:40 pm
As for you to know, I am candidate for speakership.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 21, 2009, 08:04:21 pm
I will be a candidate for Speaker as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 08:12:56 pm
I will be a candidate for Speaker as well.

:)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 21, 2009, 10:24:05 pm
I will accept votes for the Speakership.

(But I in no way expect to win :P)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 21, 2009, 10:59:26 pm
I will accept votes for the Speakership.

(But I in no way expect to win :P)

Are you actually running? I need to know what names to put on the ballot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 22, 2009, 12:15:31 am
Order!

The Second Assembly of the Northeast is now in session.

A majority of members having taken their oaths, we may proceed with the election of a speaker.

Vote for only 1 candidate.
[ ] Anotnio V
[ ] cinyc
[ ] ________ (Write-in)



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 22, 2009, 12:15:52 am
cinyc


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 22, 2009, 12:16:35 am
[ ] Anotnio V
[X] cinyc
[ ] ________ (Write-in)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 22, 2009, 12:41:22 am
cinyc


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 22, 2009, 12:57:39 am
Antonio V


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 22, 2009, 12:58:27 am
I will accept votes for the Speakership.

(But I in no way expect to win :P)

Are you actually running? I need to know what names to put on the ballot.

I assumed that I was, but appearantly since it's been decided that my wording must've been too ambiguous, forget it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on December 22, 2009, 12:59:49 am
Eugene Debs (Write-in)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 22, 2009, 04:04:39 am
[X] Antonio V
[ ] cinyc
[ ] ________ (Write-in)

Considering the domination of the right, I guess I don't have any chance to get in. It's sad because Speakership is not supposed to be a partisan position...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on December 22, 2009, 04:26:39 am
Speakership is not supposed to be a partisan position...


Bullsh**t.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: A Strange Reflection on December 22, 2009, 04:32:23 am
Speakership is not supposed to be a partisan position...


Bullsh**t.

?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 22, 2009, 04:34:54 am
Considering the domination of the right, I guess I don't have any chance to get in. It's sad because Speakership is not supposed to be a partisan po