Talk Elections

Sponsor: Wormyguy

Wormy, you have 24 hours to advocate for this bill.

I strongly support this bill.

Mass conscription began with the Grande Armée of Napoleon Bonaparte.  It was the logical conclusion of the philosophy, popular with the revolutionaries, of Jean-Jacques Rousseau; that the individual ought to live and die in the service of the State.  This innovation allowed for armies more massive than any Europe had ever seen to be raised, and allowed for the advent of cataclysmic continent or continents-wide wars with casualties in the millions, and, even more horrifically, among people who would not have freely chosen to fight in the first place.  Tyrants from Napoleon to Tsar Nicholas to Hitler to Mao Zedong have used mass conscription as a weapon against their own people, to force a mass mobilization for a conflict domestic or foreign that the population broadly was uninterested in fighting.

Conscription, as a brutal invention of tyranny, has no place in a republic such as our own.  This country was founded on protecting its citizens from tyranny, not the imitation of foreign tyrants.  We ought to believe strongly that, if government has a purpose, it is to serve the interests of its citizens.  The purpose of the citizen is not to serve the interests of the government.  Accordingly, if this country should be attacked, if the government truly serves the interests of its citizens then they will agree voluntarily to help defend it.  If there is so little faith in the government that the citizens will not agree to defend it, then the odds are that the government is not one worth saving, and we, as Senators, have failed to do our duty to ensure that the government serves the people.

More practically, including armed police and other paramilitary forces, this country already has more men under arms than any other, even more when you consider the amount of private gun-owners (as Admiral Yamamoto said, "You cannot invade mainland Atlasia. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.").  We spend more on our military than every other country on Earth combined, and most of the other top spenders are NATO allies.  And all this would only matter if we were right next to a major hostile power, of which there are none, certainly none that would have anything to gain from attacking Atlasia.  As it is there are thousands of miles of ocean between us and all major industrialized powers, such that it would be logistically impossible to mount even a small raid on mainland Atlasia even if our navy did not exceed every other navy in the world by tonnage.  Moreover, if some hypothetical equal military power did exist and somehow had the ability to invade Atlasia, such a conflict would surely turn nuclear instantly and render any discussions of conscription moot.  In this day and age, there is no practical argument for conscription whatsoever, it is merely an outdated and tyrannical institution useful only in forcing people to fight in aggressive wars against their will.

Wormyguy- I find your statement very interesting and well-researched. I would agree if we lived in a more ideal world... if in this world our enemies (if we had them) saw our government as their enemy- I would agree. The reality is- many of our enemies see no difference between our govt and our people. Sure it is repeated often but must be repeated again here- there are those who will strap a bomb to themselves to kill our civilians...becaue they hate our nation and all Atlasians

Now- there is a response to this. You say that these people dont have the means to attack us in a manner which calls for the draft...I agree. However- we simply never know what could happen. The draft isn't to protect government- it's to protect the people. Has it been used improprely? That is up for debate- I happen to have served with men who were drafted who served as honorably as any one else

To protect our citizens from tyranny- it is necessary to have at our disposal all possible options. It's been said the constitution is not a suicide pact- neither is any speech by Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, or any Founding Father. I don't say this because I don't value liberty- I say it because I value liberty and reality...to meet the challenges of today's world requires sacrifices. I've advocated a change in tactics to prioritize drones and airstrikes over ground forces...this would make conscription less necessary, but it must always be an option

The DoEA appreciates the spirit behind this amendment but must oppose it; it's too rigid and just a flat-out ban. A peacetime ban I could support, but I echo Senator Clarence's concerns on the matter. We need to retain this, just in case. I hope that during my tenure as SoEA I will never have to institute a draft, but it's wise to retain the capability to do so, just in case the hypothetical may suddenly become the practical.

This bloody thing again!

This caused all kinds of drama last time, but it is Wormy.

Again I'll make my position on this clear, I dislike conscription, and we should take all legislative measures to make it all-but-impossible to impose conscription, but a constitutional amendment will bind future Senates without regard for future circumstances.

I'm not going to engage on this issue too much, except to say, I support the intent, but I will oppose any constitutional amendment, let alone one as clumsy and inflexible as that.

Compelling young Atlasians to work for the State, and to fight, kill, possibly die or become severely wounded in a war, is slavery.  There is no way of getting around this, from a moral perspective.  Continuing to even allow conscription to be an option enables the government to reach beyond its moral boundaries and jeopardizes the ability of one to own one's self by shaping how they live their lives.  To put it simply, if the government wages war to defend a free nation and uses conscription to do it, then there is no longer a free country to defend.

As wormyguy has said, this country is very capable of defending itself in the event of an attack- both in the homefront, and the domestic front.  If a foreign military dares to threaten this country, their plans will swiftly be put to a stop.

Senator, with all due respect, if you believe that Atlasia will be able to defend herself against every enemy on every front under every scenario from now till the end of time, you're being foolish.

Conscription wouldn't change that, so...

And you make that conviction from... what, exactly?  If you believe that this country will be doomed to defend itself from foreign invaders one day, then you may as well oppose conscription anyway.

I believe that all nations rise and fall, and history backs that. Cities like Alexandria, Thessaloniki, and Kaliningrad used to be centers of major powers. Although not at all necessary now, conscription may once again be necessary, not tomorrow, not in a month, not in a year, not in a decade, perhaps not in a century, but eventually, at some point in the distant future, we will need all the troops we can raise to ensure the survival of this nation.

You have no proof that this might happen someday, though.  You have no proof that Atlasians will someday stop caring about the fate of their country and force will be necessary to maintain a strong military.  We are not debating this amendment in the distant future, we are debating this right now, and right now conscription would be redundant and unnecessary.

We are debating this amendment right now. However, we must consider the long-term effects of everything we pass. This amendment may lead to a small measure of greater freedom, but is that worth the potential that our great-great-great grandchildren may suffer under the heel of a faraway despot? I will not utilize conscription, and I doubt that the majority of my predecessors shall find any reason to even consider to do so.

As Ben Franklin once said, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."  It is contrary to the founding principles of this nation to say that we should sacrifice what you call "a small measure of greater freedom" for military reasons.  You say that our great-great-great grandchildren suffer if we outlaw this policy, but you do not seem to consider how many thousands of our troops would suffer if they are being forced into killing and risking their own lives against their will.

Scott- this is going to come across grumpy and condescending but know that isn't my intentention...
There is a difference between theory and reality. Theoretically the last statement in your first paragraph makes sense...but in reality the draft exists as an option to ensure the freedoms we have now will continue. Wormyguy says that in the event we needed a draft- citizens would rise up and if thy wouldn't- the nation deserves to be defeated. However- people are individualistic... if there is an existential threat to our nation, it is one to evry citizen as well and I don't see young men signing up in droves to bet placed on the front lines...do you?

The way you and wormyguy make it seem- it's as if we mandate military service or draft kids every other day. It hasn't happened for nearly four decades and all of us- even me, the biggest hawk here- agree it shouldnt be used except in extraordinary cases. Why don't we amend this to have the Senate authorize conscription by a 3/4 vote?


I posted above and see that you posted more in response to Joyce...

OK...as I mentioned in my response to wormyguy- neither our constitution or any speech by a Foudning Father is a suicide pact. But in case it sways you, here is what Jefferson said- "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." This regarded the Louisiana Purchase which he wasn't permitted to do and which would've been as Washington put it- an imperial Presidency. Bt he did it and we're glad he did! Look at what Lincoln pulled during the Civil War- he recognized that in exceptional cases- we must act for self-preservation

I've been using the phrase "The constitution is not a suicide pact"... this comes from a 1963 Supreme Court decision involving the draft of all things... here is a piece from the majority opinion by Justice Goldberg...

"The Constitution is silent about the permissibility of involuntary forfeiture of citizenship rights. While it confirms citizenship rights, plainly there are imperative obligations of citizenship, performance of which Congress in the exercise of its powers may constitutionally exact. One of the most important of these is to serve the country in time of war and national emergency. The powers of Congress to require military service for the common defense are broad and far-reaching, for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact. Similarly, Congress has broad power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact legislation for the regulation of foreign affairs. Latitude in this area is necessary to ensure effectuation of this indispensable function of government."

Your post does not sound condescending at all, Clarence.

Yes, in fact, I do believe that young men would sign up in droves if our country was ever truly under attack.  Atlasia always has people who are willing to fight and people aren't going to take an attack sitting down, either on the homefront or the domestic side.  And the reason why this country is free is because we strongly value individualism and the right to shape your future the way you want.  Forcing a young person to enlist and work for the State or face penalties is the exact opposite of preserving freedom and individualism, and that is why, as I've said- there will no longer be a truly free nation to protect if we surrender these values.

I am aware we do not mandate military services at this time, but the very purpose of this amendment is to ensure that it is never an option.  And remember, "extraordinary cases" can be interpreted in many ways.

I fully understand that restrictions on government power need to be balanced with self-preservation, however, I believe a line needs to be drawn when the government reaches beyond its limits and the right to self-ownership is violated.  When the question comes down to the protection of the individual and the protection of the State, the protection of the individual needs to transcend.  The government simply cannot force you into battle and "protect" you at the same time.  Like I've mentioned before, If we compromise on founding principles for the sake of security, then we would be hypocrites and destroying the values that we seek to protect.

It is a small measure of liberty, so small as to be almost nonexistant, because quite simply no liberty is currently being lost. There are no "thousands of troops" suffering, because we're not conscripting people. Nobody is suffering due to the ability to initiate a draft being in the Constitution, as it hasn't been used for a long period, is not being used, and is extremely unlikely to be used. The only reason it is on the books at all is in the extreme situation of a total war against a massive and powerful enemy; till such a war, it is not used, not needed, and should not be outlawed. If you wanted a ban on peacetime conscription, or make conscription something the Senate needs to expressly vote on, or require a 3/4 majority as Senator Clarence proposed, that'd be reasonable, but in its current form, this amendment is irrational and inflexible, and should be defeated.

When you're told that you have to kill people overseas, possibly risking a limb or your life, or else go to jail or be forced to leave your country to escape it, that is not merely a "small measure of liberty" being lost.  I am fully aware that we are not conscripting troops at this time, but suffering is what will come about if we ever decide to do this.

In your scenario, there's a net gain for liberty. Although what you describe may occur, any such thing is outweighed by the liberty preserved; in any scenario where I could plausibly see conscription used, there is an imminent danger to the security of the Atlasian people, that threatens to remove all liberties from all of us.

You cannot preserve liberty by taking it away.  Period.  Similar to what I've said, a government cannot protect you and force you into a place of death and destruction at the same time; the two are completely opposite from each other.  If you've lost your freedom to self-determination, all freedom has been lost.  In the end, I suppose it comes down to what liberties you value more, but going for the better of the bad is not choosing the freer path.

The government cannot and should not do so, I agree; however, conscription is something that would only come into play when all of our liberties are at risk (ie: we have been attacked by a foreign nation), and I value all of my liberties more than some of them (and choosing all of your liberties over some is indeed the freer path).

So it is better to sacrifice all liberties forever then to lose some for a short time?

He doesn't need proof that it definately will happen someday. All he has to do is establish that the possibility exists that it might, since his arguement is to preserve the policy for use only as an emergency contingency. You on the other hand desire it to be completely taken off the table; therefore, the only one who needs to prove something is you. Specifically, that we will never ever end up like those fallen countries. Unless you believe in some kind of extreme form of "Atlasian Exceptionalism", that it is a very tall order indeed.

You reject debate about the distant future in preference to right now yet you also warn about "future" potential depreviations of liberty as result of this policy. :P

What are you talking about?

I am not saying that it is impossible for an attack to happen someday.  I'm saying that, irrespective of the circumstances, it is never justified for a government to deprive its people of basic liberties.  Atlasia wasn't founded on the idea that liberty is something we can compromise on or take away during certain circumstances.  Sjo seems to think that because other powerful nations fall, as he mentioned, the decline of this country is inevitable.  Nice strawman, though.

Uh, yes.  If conscription is ever enacted by this government, liberty will be deprived.  That is not merely a "potential" deprivation of liberty.

Also, something I just realized.  Constitutional amendments can be repealed, yes?  Because if this is the case, then technically we're not completely taking conscription off the table because amendments can be undone.

He didn't say it was inevitable for us to decline, he just said it was possible. And that is a sufficient standard for his arguement.

Yes, but getting consensus on a repeal amendment and then ratifying it in the regions could take atleast 2 weeks if not more.

He said that he believes that all nations rise and fall.  But if Atlasia truly is going to fall someday just because all other powerful nations failed, then it just seems a tad silly to support conscription.

Indeed, it would.  But forcing the government to go through the ratification process would make conscription, of course, all-but-impossible to impose. ;)

His point was that their is a possibility that someday we won't be number 1 and may not even been in the top 10 and as such relying on the shock and awe of American military prowess may not suffice, as such may not even be in existance at that time.

And yet you claim it wouldn't be taken off the table? ;)

I said that I believe all nations rise and fall, and that through observation of history, it is certainly a possibility that such could affect Atlasia (though not a certainty, a possibility), and thus possible Atlasia could be attacked by an enemy of superior military capability to our own, a problem we cannot simply "nuke away", in which case we would need to do everything we could to ensure the continued survival of our nation as we know it.

And that multi-week time period is weeks that enemy forces could be ravaging the Atlasian countryside. Again, a peacetime ban is rational. A 3/4 requirement is rational. A blanket ban? Irrational.

::)

You didn't say it was possible that Atlasia would fall, you said that all powerful nations do rise and fall.  You may retract on your statement, but those were your words.

Most legislation we debate now takes a week or two to get through with.  The healthcare bill has been on the floor for two months, now.  And it would be unwise to rush through something that would affect so many people this way, especially when we have a strong military.

And how does my interpretation not mesh with the full context of what he was talking about?

Aren't you getting a bit ridiculous with this? It is inherently "possible" precisely because all powerfull nations do rise and fall.

Because, if all nations fall even if they are powerful, then there shouldn't be a reason to support conscription anyway- using his logic.

No I am not, but you two definitely are and at this point we're just getting away from the issue at hand.  Sjo did not say it is possible that all nations rise and fall, he merely said that they do rise and fall.

I said that historically, nations do rise and fall, and the implication of that is that it is entirely possible that the same can apply to Atlasia.

Oh, I get it now. You are using a different definition of the word fall.


You are saying that if the country is going to completely collapse at some point, why bother. No, the point is that we won't always have the overwhelming power we have now and therefore in the future, other means may need to be provided for to defend the nation. The nation could still survive for several more decades, centuries, or even indefinately in a reduced status. It may not happen all at once. Your reponse would be "Just get it over with already". That would be several more generations of people that could have had their freedom preserved, but would not because of impractical notions of principle.

No, our arguements are still at the root of our position that we may need conscription some day in the future which is the issue at hand.

You are the one who is arguing over interpretations of the word fall.

Well, then thank you for changing the context of your words.

His context was perfectly clear before if you looked at the totality of a his statement as it was, before viewing it through a tactical lense.

"You disagree with me and you are not on the matter at hand"

Is there something in the water in that part of the country?

Personal insults, now?  Really?

This whole conversation changed from a reasonable, philosophical debate about conscription to someone not being able to clarify what they were saying.

Keep taking my words out of context, though.

To make it an insult, you'd replace the "and" with a "thus", as shown above.

...

Yes, that is totally the part of his post I was talking about.

Take some reading classes, guys. :)

Dude, you are the one making a big deal out of him clarifying what he said. He was clear then (to me at least) and he has been clear 3 or 4 times since, yet you keep harping on an issue of semantics and then accuse of him and me of getting off topic, when the clarification is made several times over. You are the one taking people out of context, you are the one making an issue whe he has clarified and you are the one who is far more off topic then we are. Quit pretending to Nap-Libby 2.0, already.

No, to make it an insult, I would have posted the "redacted" version that I typed and then revised.

Fine then. To make the whole thing into an insult for which redaction would not be necessary, you'd do such.

I think Clarence had it right when it established this as a choice between realism and idealism. It is not realistic to rest on the laurels of current strengrth, as justifications not to worry about future contingencies and thus defend forever removing conscription as a "practical" option, even if it is still technically possible via repeal of the Amendment.

No country remains on top forever and current projections are for China and then India to overtake and push us to number 3. Theoretically, we should stay there for quite a long while, but who knows what can happen. China and India might just collapse tomorrow and we may get another 130 years as top dog. Precisely because we don't know what will happen and since we are detemined to never use this unless absolutely necessary, we should not ban conscription via the Constitution. If we could predict the future, or we were using it more frequently, then I would take a different approach.

We agree Yankee...

But I'm concerned this is going to turn into another slanging match... when this came up during my time as a Senator, I strongly opposed this, then decided it should be decided by the people, but I would campaign against it.

NC Yankee and SJoycleFla explained better then I ever could what is wrong with this proposal...

I agree that we need conscription on the books but need to restrict its use somehow. I think having 3/4ths of the Senators agree to it is a good way of doing that.

Introducing this Amendment

The DoEA finds this much more acceptable than the original.

Sponsor Feedback: Invalid Search Criteria
Status: Uncertain

WORMYGUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfriendly.

Frankly, the requirement that citizens be forced against their will to risk their lives on behalf of their government is the most extreme form of oppression possible short of simply rounding them up and having them tortured or killed.  There is absolutely no significant force anywhere in the world desirous of having Atlasians rounded up and tortured and killed.  There is no country in the world even theoretically capable of invading Atlasia, and there is no country in the world that would want to or have anything to gain from initiating hostilities with Atlasia even if they were evenly matched.  Furthermore, if there were a country both hostile to and evenly matched with Atlasia, such a conflict would immediately go nuclear, rendering conventional forces pointless.  Drafts have no purpose other than misuse, as they always have in Atlasia beginning with their inception in the Civil War.*

It's permitting a truly extreme form of oppression almost unheard of in the broad scheme of human history for a possibility not only remote but in fact non-existent and with no possibility of ever coming to pass in this nuclear age.  It is the very definition of insanity to maintain this as government policy.

*Where the draft was used as a tool of quite literally killing off the opposition; enforced at four times the rate in Democratic New York City as in Republican Massachusetts, while wealthy people could purchase exemptions first for $300 and later by hiring someone else to take their place, and where desertion was punished by death, with at least 50,000 executed for that reason.

I'd appreciate you detailing a scenario in which the government finds it necessary to initiate conscription and gets 3/4 of the Senate to agree...

Frankly, Wormy, I don't see a good argument as to why we cannot have the draft on the books, given the ancient "better safe than sorry" principle.

I urge the Senate to pass my Amendment.

The White House would certainly be more comfortable with Senator Ben's proposal.

Senators, the above amendment is now at vote, so please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

;D Yup

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson went on television and outright lied to the Atlasian people in order to have his pointless war of aggression including massive conscription to fight it approved, and it was, by a vote of 416 in favor to 0 opposed in the old House of Representatives.  It's more a question of what wouldn't our sainted elected officials agree to if it were proposed by the presidential administration under the guise of "defending freedom."

And Nay.

Aye

Aye

Aye

Nay, Senate is not representative of the people, IRV can elect enough moderate heroes that will vote for this, especially during a war.

Let's try this Amendment


I think this would be a better amendment, anything can be declared an Ally or a territory, but it's harder to admit imperialist adventures into a state.

A possible suggestion, similar to the amendments TJ and I wrote up when this thing emerged before was to place strict conditions
a) that it could only happen if the Atlasian homeland was attacked
b) that there were exclusions for single-parent households, students, existing emergency workers and other essential service workers

We could pull that language back out of the trash can if this fails and maybe the senate is more open to compromise than it was four months ago. I still think that language could be problematic in some cases, like World War II for instance, and prefer Ben's Amendment since it allows greater flexibility for any situation that might arise. I, of course, am still open to my language :P

That amendment passed the Senate.  It failed in three regions.

No, that was the version that gave the regions the power to conscript. The version that simply left the federal government with that power to conscript in case of a land invasion failed in the senate.

Aye on Ben's amendment


February/March Fest (Failed in the Senate):
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148095.0


Just in case someone wants to read over it.

And of course October Fest (Failed to achieve Ratification):
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=140787.0

Vote on Amendment 49:18:

Aye (6): Ben, Clarence, ILV, NC Yankee, sbane and TJ in Cleve
Nay (3): Scott, Seatown and Wormyguy
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): AndrewPA

With six votes in the affirmative, the amendment is adopted.

Okay, let's kill this thing.

Seatown voted Nay.

Yea, I hate it when they do that.

You sure we don't have anymore amendments or anything here? We don't have that many bills left in the queue.

What about territories that are not part of a region, such as the Atlasian Virgin Islands or Palmyra Atoll?

How about changing the name to distinguish it from other "anti-conscription" amendments?

Their status needs to be changed, I find their existence undemocratic.

List of insular areas that are not states:

Palmyra Atoll (uninhabited, mostly owned by The Nature Conservancy)
Atlasian Virgin Islands (inhabited, status currently under Revised Organic Act of 1954)
Baker, Howland, Jarvis Islands (uninhabited)
Johnston Atoll (uninhabited)
Kingman Reef (uninhabited)
Midway Atoll (National Wildlife Refuge)
Navassa Island (uninhabited, disputed w/ Haiti)
Wake Island (inhabited, disputed w/Marshall Islands)
Serranilla & Bajo Nuevo Bank (uninhabited, disputed w/ Colombia)

Also: Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau are freely associated states and shall be eligible to join Oceania (part of the Pacific region) if they so choose.

Atlasia also has dormant claims on, under the Guano Islands Act:
Ducie Island (currently controlled by the Pitcairn Islands)
Fox Island (currently controlled by Canada)
Alto Velo Island (currently controlled by Dominican Republic)

So which of these do you want to alter, and in what manner (and I'd suggest doing so in a separate bill)?

Let all of them have a referendum on whether they want statehood or independence(the uninhabited islands go to the nearest Atlasian inhabited island). I think this is a non-issue though, why would conscription be justifiable for a uninhabited island?

The issue arose based on your amendment, Senator.

Sponsor Feedback: Undefined
Status: Waitin on a Sunny Day

Why do we need to change the status of all these territories just to make the language work on an amendment? Why don't we just change the wording to include Atlasian territories and deal all the rest of this separately? None of this really needs to have to do with this bill. (Not that I agree we should forcibly change the status of our territories, but that's a separate issue)

Agreed; however, the Senator who introduced said amendment stated that

The amendment is unfriendly.

Is that current with the Atlasian situation?  Whatever happened to Oceania?  Is that a state?  I feel like the Midwest claimed it at some point.

Isn't this just verging off into some random tangent...

IIRC Oceania=Guam, North Marianas, and Atlasian Samoa. It's part of the Pacific.

Wait, what about my already passed Amendment?  Would this Amendment overturn mine?

I would like to introduce an amendment of my own.

Yes it would.

I think from now on we should require that all amendment sponsors update their texts as the bill is modified to reflect such changes, on penalty of having them tossed if they fail to do so.

I object to both Amendments.

Nay.

Also, this is a very poorly worded amendment.  The definition of the word "attack" can be stretched far beyond what is implied.

You mean IRL? Or here?

Gentlement we are voting on this, just for clarification. I was on my dad's laptop on Friday and I was constantly getting session timed out and the modification to the topic line didn't go through. He then started bugging me about wanting to go to sleep and I didn't want it put it my room because that is way of getting rid of stuff permenently and I don't have room for it, so to make a long story short, it got forgotten about. :P

Nay

I am considering tossing Wormyguy's amendment on grounds that it is functionally impractical and thus frivolous. I will give him a chance to convince me otherwise or alter the text. There is also an objection period to that and I don't have a direct link to the OSPR saved on a handy notepad like I do on the T3302.

Nay

Nay

>:( Nope

Nay

Nay

NAY

Nay.


My amendment is not frivolous and addresses a genuine concern - that Senators unwilling to risk their own lives will vote to force others to risk theirs.  If there are currently no procedures for joining the Atlasian military or legislation defining what that implies, that's a failure of this body that needs to be corrected, not a flaw in the amendment.

The Senator has an excellent idea. Perhaps, as part of registration (a new, stickied thread would be nice for this), one would give a basic biography (a paragraph or two) about themselves? Major accomplishments, education, job history, current role (if applicable), etc. These would be kept updated, ideally.

And how would you police it to ensure accuracy?

Well, it'd be part of registration, so I'd assume the Registrar General would do so?

How not who? Is homely going to send of team of Frank Cannons and Jim Rockfords to investigate the RL people who register to find out if the information is truthfull?

If they make it all up upon registration what's the point? Everyone will either lie or leave the game who is not a veteran.

That is why it is impractical. There is no way to make this work.

Vote on the Seatown Amendment:

Aye (0):
Nay (9): AndrewPA, Ben, ILV, NC Yankee, sbane, Scott, Seatown, TJ in Cleve, and Wormyguy
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Clarence

Attempted to Vote Twice (2): Scott and Wormyguy

The amendment has failed.

Can we table this?

Puts on Al Gore hat, "Has the petition been signed by [another] Senator?"


:P

I'll second.

ah yes, it is great to be back in the saddle again with all the necessary resources at my disposal. >:D

A motion to table the underlying legislation has been filed with the clerk and the requisite second has been offered by another sitting Senator. A vote is thus now open on the question of whether or not to table the underlying legislation, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

Aye.  I don't think we'll be going anywhere with this.

Nay

I think a vote on the legislation itself would be better at this point.

Aye

Good point- I change my vote to Nay

Nay.

Yup ;D

Aye

Aye

Vote on the question of whether or not to table the current bill, the Anti-Conscription Amendment and move on with the next item in the queue:

Aye (5): AndrewPA, Ben, ILV, Scott, and Seatown
Nay (3): Clarence, TJ in Cleve and Wormyguy
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (2): NC Yankee and sbane - You despicable turkeys

With 2/3rds of those Senators voting having not voted in the affirmative, the bill is not tabled and debate resumes.

I move for a final vote

Senators this bill is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Nay

Nay

Nay

Nope >:(

Nay

Not in the world.


Nay

I ask the Senators to reconsider their votes in favor of slavery

This Amendment has enough votes to fail, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Nay

I would like to change my vote to Aye.

I'm not in favor of an outright ban over conscription, but it is something that ought to be taken very seriously. Thus, I have decided to change my vote in favor of making it more difficult.

Aye

Vote on final passage of the Anti-Conscription Amendment:

Aye (4): Scott, Seatown, TJ in Cleve and Wormyguy
Nay (6): AndrewPA, Ben, Clarence, ILV, NC Yankee and sbane
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

With 2/3rds of the Senate having not voted in the affirmative, the amendment is not adopted.