Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Atlas Fantasy Government => Topic started by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 12, 2012, 02:12:31 AM



Title: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 12, 2012, 02:12:31 AM
()

Members
Senator Scott - Committee Chair
Senator HagridOfTheDeep
Senator Marokai Blue

Current Order of Business:
Blast from Game Reform Past Amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg3414934#msg3414934)

Topic/Hearing Queue
Blast from Game Reform Past Amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg3414934#msg3414934)

Completed Tasks
  • Court Reform (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157350.msg3382643#msg3382643)
  • Equal Rights Amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157350.msg3388811#msg3388811)
  • The Holding CEOs Accountable Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157350.msg3399274#msg3399274)
  • Capital Punishment Abolition Amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157350.msg3408611#msg3408611)
  • Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg3414928#msg3414928)


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Determining Business)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 12, 2012, 02:15:50 AM
What shall we do first, members?  The Government Oversight and Reform Committee is currently taking up court reform, so we can start off with that (as part of our 'joint operation') or take up legislation in the queue.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Determining Business)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 12, 2012, 02:12:47 PM
I'm fine with that idea.

If we are going to discuss court reform, I think it may be good to consider what having two additional justices would mean. We would have two extra players on the court, which would still rarely hear cases. We would have to worry about possible allegations of court-packing (though it could be mitigated by delaying the date it would take effect).

The biggest problem with court reform is we seem to lack a collective vision of what the court should be. At the moment it is a largely distance body that overlooks affairs from afar while rarely if ever hearing cases. It acts as a fairly good game referee  and thankfully overlooked political allegiance in the Tweed case.

I suppose in order to lay out a plan for court reform we first need to lay out a vision for what the court ought to be.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 12, 2012, 04:18:46 PM
I'm fine with that idea.

If we are going to discuss court reform, I think it may be good to consider what having two additional justices would mean. We would have two extra players on the court, which would still rarely hear cases. We would have to worry about possible allegations of court-packing (though it could be mitigated by delaying the date it would take effect).

The biggest problem with court reform is we seem to lack a collective vision of what the court should be. At the moment it is a largely distance body that overlooks affairs from afar while rarely if ever hearing cases. It acts as a fairly good game referee  and thankfully overlooked political allegiance in the Tweed case.

I suppose in order to lay out a plan for court reform we first need to lay out a vision for what the court ought to be.

I think that delaying the dates for appointments is going to be the only way to ensure that this isn't just a court-packing scheme, so that can definitely be one of the committee's recommendations.

What do you mean when you say we need to lay out a vision?  The Court already serves a purpose that's long been established, which is exactly what you said it does - that is, being a game referee.  The problems are that it's seldom needed, not all justices write their own opinions for the cases, and because there are only three people on the court, we don't get to hear from many different viewpoints.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: Napoleon on August 13, 2012, 03:19:49 PM
With two failed judicial proposals already, it is probably a better idea to focus on other priorities. The Constitution is difficult to amend and the Court has no significant problems requiring immediate attention. While a five member Court could be interesting and allow more access to the judicial branch for players, I believe our efforts could be best directed at policy measures at this moment in history.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 13, 2012, 10:01:32 PM
I am also growing a bit pessimistic of actually seeing any kind of court reform pass.  Since the Gov't Oversight Committee is thinking about abandoning this, it might be a good idea that we move onto the next topic in the queue.  Still, I would like to at least vote on some kind of a recommendation before we move on.

What do TJ and Seatown think?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 13, 2012, 11:54:08 PM
I agree that the only thing we all seem to be in agreement on is requiring each justice to write a public opinion. The rest seems to have just run into too much opposition and divergent interests.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: LastVoter on August 14, 2012, 08:06:01 PM
I agree that the only thing we all seem to be in agreement on is requiring each justice to write a public opinion. The rest seems to have just run into too much opposition and divergent interests.
This.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: LastVoter on August 14, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
We might also consider creating some ways where we can create more cases for the court, for example by having Atlasian government file lawsuits in certain cases rather than legislate(I can't think of other ways attm). I don't think there's any reason to increase number of justices until court sees more cases.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on August 14, 2012, 09:38:45 PM
Sorry to intrude, but a question: could the GM create scenarios for lawsuits?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 14, 2012, 09:39:28 PM
Sorry to intrude, but a question: could the GM create scenarios for lawsuits?

If the GM sues someone, yes. :P


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: opebo on August 15, 2012, 04:43:48 PM
Requiring each justice to write an opinion would require a constitutional amendment, fellows.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 15, 2012, 08:19:42 PM
In correspondence with the Gov't Oversight and Reform Committee, I will open the vote on committee recommendations.



Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

On recommendation to expand the court by two members

On recommendation to require Supreme Court justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court



On recommendation to expand the court by two members
Nay.

On recommendation to require Supreme Court Justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court
Aye.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 15, 2012, 08:21:11 PM
In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 15, 2012, 08:23:28 PM
In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?

That would depend on when the current recommendation votes expire, because legislation is suppose to be considered for a period of seven days before reaching the Senate floor.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 15, 2012, 08:31:00 PM
In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?

That would depend on when the current recommendation votes expire, because legislation is suppose to be considered for a period of seven days before reaching the Senate floor.

Didn't your resolution creating this committee list that as a maximum? Meaning it could go under that if necessary, correct?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 15, 2012, 08:34:14 PM
In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?

That would depend on when the current recommendation votes expire, because legislation is suppose to be considered for a period of seven days before reaching the Senate floor.

Didn't your resolution creating this committee list that as a maximum? Meaning it could go under that if necessary, correct?

I suppose so, but then again, the time it takes to consider legislation will depend on how much debate there is.  Clarence brought up a few reservations he has with the ERA, so it'd be nice for us to work out those problems during the time that we have.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 15, 2012, 08:41:38 PM
In the estimation of the Chairmen would the Judiciary committee have sufficient time to consider and pass a recommendation on the ERA amendment, if it were to be put on the Senate floor either tonight or tomorrow sometime, which has been requested?

That would depend on when the current recommendation votes expire, because legislation is suppose to be considered for a period of seven days before reaching the Senate floor.

Didn't your resolution creating this committee list that as a maximum? Meaning it could go under that if necessary, correct?

I suppose so, but then again, the time it takes to consider legislation will depend on how much debate there is.  Clarence brought up a few reservations he has with the ERA, so it'd be nice for us to work out those problems during the time that we have.

Clarence isn't on this committee.

I know, but he's brought up some concerns.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: Napoleon on August 15, 2012, 08:43:10 PM
Damn it, I deleted that post..oh well, my point was that this committee should give its opinion and then if Senators want to raise additional concerns they can propose amendments. Mr. Moderate suggested an amendment to me for example, to include gender identity.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 15, 2012, 08:46:09 PM
Damn it, I deleted that post..oh well, my point was that this committee should give its opinion and then if Senators want to raise additional concerns they can propose amendments. Mr. Moderate suggested an amendment to me for example, to include gender identity.

They can do that too, but since Clarence already raised some concerns, they can be worked out just as well in the committee.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Court Reform)
Post by: Napoleon on August 15, 2012, 08:50:25 PM
Damn it, I deleted that post..oh well, my point was that this committee should give its opinion and then if Senators want to raise additional concerns they can propose amendments. Mr. Moderate suggested an amendment to me for example, to include gender identity.

They can do that too, but since Clarence already raised some concerns, they can be worked out just as well in the committee.

That's fine, whether they are discussed here or on the floor, but my personal opinion is that the concerns he posted are either illegitimate or rooted in ideological opposition to the concept, and cannot be reconciled with the aims of the amendment. I would rather discuss such concerns at greater length with all Senators present, if I am called upon.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 15, 2012, 10:32:40 PM
Once again... :P

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

On recommendation to expand the court by two members

On recommendation to require Supreme Court justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: LastVoter on August 15, 2012, 10:33:39 PM
On recommendation to expand the court by two members
Nay.

On recommendation to require Supreme Court Justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 16, 2012, 07:57:43 PM
I decided to go with the other requested item in the hopes of buying time. Unfortunately the ERA is probably going to get placed in Slot 1 when the Antartic bill gets done, so it may not be that long a time anyway. Therefore I would suggest expediting this recommendation vote, if possible, use "extreme" measures to procure the necessary attentativeness from the members. ;)


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 16, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
Seatown, TJ, PLEASE help us get through the amendment as fast as we can.  Thanks. :P

I will be a dick if necessary.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 16, 2012, 11:35:12 PM
Sorry for not voting here after voting elsewhere for longer than it should have taken.

On recommendation to expand the court by two members
Nay.

On recommendation to require Supreme Court Justices to post opinions on each case considered by the court
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2012, 12:16:11 AM
All members have voted.  By a vote of 3-0, this Committee hereby recommends that each Supreme Court judge be required to post their own opinions for all court cases.

()


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2012, 12:18:51 AM
The Committee will now consider the Constitutional amendment authored by the Administration and introduced by myself.

AN AMENDMENT

To ensure the equal protection of all genders n the Republic of Atlasia.

Be it enacted by 2/3 of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia.

SECTION ONE. TITLE

This amendment may be cited as the 'Equal Rights Amendment.'

SECTION TWO. AMENDMENT

1.) Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by Atlasia or by any Region on account of sex or sexual orientation towards adults.

2.) The Senate shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



First, I would like to formally give the President the opportunity to speak on behalf of his amendment.  In doing so, I would like him to address the concerns that Senate Clarence raised (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150709.msg3362422#msg3362422) so we can work out any quirks in a timely fashion.

(Yes, I will be speaking in defense of the amendment, as well. :P)


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2012, 01:02:34 AM
Also Yankee, would there be enough time for us to consider Ben's law, as well?  If there's no possible way to include that into the schedule, I suppose I can have the Committee consider both bills at the same time, but I'm very reluctant to do this.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: opebo on August 17, 2012, 04:44:21 PM
Requiring each justice to write an opinion would require a constitutional amendment, fellows.

The point being - it is petty, and quite frankly an insult to the dignity of the Justices and more importantly the dignity and indepedence of the institution, to attempt to micro-manage the court in the way you are doing. 

Lets all step back and face the facts:  The attemps to pack the court failed.  It would be ridiculous to make a constitutional amendment to give us a writing assignment - your oversight is confined to confirmation and impeachment, not to running the court.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2012, 05:28:02 PM
Requiring each justice to write an opinion would require a constitutional amendment, fellows.

The point being - it is petty, and quite frankly an insult to the dignity of the Justices and more importantly the dignity and indepedence of the institution, to attempt to micro-manage the court in the way you are doing.  

Lets all step back and face the facts:  The attemps to pack the court failed.  It would be ridiculous to make a constitutional amendment to give us a writing assignment - your oversight is confined to confirmation and impeachment, not to running the court.


Actually, if you'd read the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Creation Resolution, (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary_Creation_Resolution) the Committee also has jurisdiction over all courts and judges, regional and federal.  A recommendation vote itself is virtually meaningless because all it does is endorse the idea of judges having 'writing assignments.'  However, it is likely that a Constitutional amendment will sooner or later come up that would do just that.  I don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: opebo on August 17, 2012, 05:34:08 PM
i don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.

That was precisely my point - you guys failed to pack the court, so don't now in frustration just try to insult us with these demeaning writing assignmetns and micromanagement.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2012, 05:56:27 PM
i don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.

That was precisely my point - you guys failed to pack the court, so don't now in frustration just try to insult us with these demeaning writing assignmetns and micromanagement.

I don't know where you got the idea that we're just doing this all out of frustration.  There are plenty of valid reasons for requiring justices to write their own opinions.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: opebo on August 17, 2012, 06:11:41 PM
I don't know where you got the idea that we're just doing this all out of frustration.  There are plenty of valid reasons for requiring justices to write their own opinions.

You do realize the Court is a third branch of government, don't you?  Equal to and no subsidiary to the legislative or the executive?  Your powers over us are strictly enumerated, and I see nothing in the Constitution giving you authority to give me homework or otherwise micromanage us.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2012, 07:29:21 PM
I don't know where you got the idea that we're just doing this all out of frustration.  There are plenty of valid reasons for requiring justices to write their own opinions.

You do realize the Court is a third branch of government, don't you?  Equal to and no subsidiary to the legislative or the executive?  Your powers over us are strictly enumerated, and I see nothing in the Constitution giving you authority to give me homework or otherwise micromanage us.

As I've said, what the Judiciary Committee recommended won't even take effect unless a Senator proposes an amendment, the amendment is passed by 2/3 of the Senate, and four out of the five regions ratify it.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: Napoleon on August 18, 2012, 03:01:27 PM
The Committee will now consider the Constitutional amendment authored by the Administration and introduced by myself.

AN AMENDMENT

To ensure the equal protection of all genders n the Republic of Atlasia.

Be it enacted by 2/3 of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia.

SECTION ONE. TITLE

This amendment may be cited as the 'Equal Rights Amendment.'

SECTION TWO. AMENDMENT

1.) Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by Atlasia or by any Region on account of sex or sexual orientation towards adults.

2.) The Senate shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



First, I would like to formally give the President the opportunity to speak on behalf of his amendment.  In doing so, I would like him to address the concerns that Senate Clarence raised (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150709.msg3362422#msg3362422) so we can work out any quirks in a timely fashion.

(Yes, I will be speaking in defense of the amendment, as well. :P)

You already addressed Senator Clarence's opposition, I have little to add. I will be referring the Attorney General to this committee.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 18, 2012, 03:03:13 PM
Okay.  An opinion from the AG would be very helpful, as well.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: afleitch on August 18, 2012, 04:26:17 PM
Okay.  An opinion from the AG would be very helpful, as well.

I am more than happy to.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 18, 2012, 04:30:11 PM
Afleitch, what are your personal feelings on the amendment?  Do you believe that the concerns Clarence raised are legitimate ones?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 18, 2012, 07:50:13 PM
i don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.

That was precisely my point - you guys failed to pack the court, so don't now in frustration just try to insult us with these demeaning writing assignmetns and micromanagement.

I don't know where you got the idea that we're just doing this all out of frustration.  There are plenty of valid reasons for requiring justices to write their own opinions.

Not to mention the fact that his timeline doesn't work out at all. This idea predates the debates on expanding the court.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: LastVoter on August 18, 2012, 08:02:47 PM
i don't know why you're worried about "court packing," since both of the committees working on court reform have pretty much deemed that proposal dead and the chances are that it won't be considered again.

That was precisely my point - you guys failed to pack the court, so don't now in frustration just try to insult us with these demeaning writing assignmetns and micromanagement.
Well they failed to pack the court, but I tried to introduce that to avert the packing of the court.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: afleitch on August 20, 2012, 07:32:56 AM
If I may adress the Senate on this issue, particularly Senator Clarence's points.

The ERA would simply guarantee that the rights affirmed by our constitution are held equally without regard to sex or sexual orienation. Sex and sexual orientation through this amendment would be considered a 'suspect classification'; similar to how race is treated. Therefore actions taken by this government that treat males, females or peopleacross the spectrum of sexuality differently as a class, would be subject to judicial scrutiny and would have to meet the highest level of justification ('a necessary relation to a compelling state interest') in order to be upheld as constitutional. Senator Clarence suggests that the ERA places a 'blanket ban' on an organisation that discriminates membership based on sex. He should be aware that even without an ERA, Supreme Court decisions undertaken by our predecessor nation has limited the consitutionality of public single-sex unions (Mississippi University for Woman v Hogan, U.S v Commonwealth of Virginia (1996) ) However the constitution already provides for freedom of assembly. The ERA does not contravene that right specifically when applied to exclusively private members organisations. It is important to read this amendment as part of our constitution, not set apart from it.

Senator Clarence also raises his concern over the draft. Amendment VIII of the Third Constitution reads; "Neither shall the Republic of Atlasia nor any of its constituent regions enforce compulsory conscription upon any citizen, without the consent of four-fifths of the Senate." Naturally the draft has not been enforced since 1973 and this amendment strengthens this position. In the event that four-fifths of the Senate vote to enact compulsory conscription there is nothing currently in the constitution that protects women against involuntary military service. It just so happens that the Senate has not required them to participate or register with the Selective Service System but it still holds the power to do so (confined by Amendment VIII.) Should the ERA be passed then there would still be nothing in the Constitution that protects women against involuntary military service. However it would make exluding them from consideration solely on account of their sex unconstitutional for the first time. There is no legitimate reason in my opinion to exclude women from combat or front-line roles should they be mentally and physically qualified to do so. At the moment, except for a few select positions, women are excluded firstly (and exclusively) on account of their gender, not their combat readiness or any other attribute. If a women is fit to serve a selected role she should serve. If she is unfit she shouldn't serve. This works well for men.

On the matter of transgenderism being a 'choice' I have to stridently disagree with the Senator. Having a gender identity different to one's physical sex is not a choice. His restroom analogy is slightly off. Firstly there would still be seperate restrooms should an establishment wish (or unisex restrooms should they wish) as long as both sexes can do what they need to do. That is common practice anyway. All the ERA would outlaw, if it even still happens, is only having toilets exclusively for one sex. However I digress. A post op transgender, having had their physical sex re-aligned with their gender identity should not be barred from using the restrooms allocated to their physical sex. If anything, Atlasia needs thorough and comprehensive legislation on transgender issues but this is something I would put to the Senate to consider.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 20, 2012, 07:50:07 PM
Is there a definition of "sexual orientation" being used here?  This is not an uncontested concept. Is it meant here to refer to behavior as well as attraction?   If it is meant attraction, then there is no lawful reason to include the "towards adults" part at the end, since people who are attracted to youth, animals, objects, etc. should not be denied their equal rights on this basis alone so long as in their actions they abide by the law.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2012, 10:08:06 PM
Thank you, Afleitch.

Is there a definition of "sexual orientation" being used here?  This is not an uncontested concept. Is it meant here to refer to behavior as well as attraction?   If it is meant attraction, then there is no lawful reason to include the "towards adults" part at the end, since people who are attracted to youth, animals, objects, etc. should not be denied their equal rights on this basis alone so long as in their actions they abide by the law.

Since transgendered people would be covered by this as well, I think it's safe to assume that both would be defined under that term.  Do you feel that the amendment should explicitly define 'sexual orientation?'


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 20, 2012, 10:22:45 PM
Thank you, Afleitch.

Is there a definition of "sexual orientation" being used here?  This is not an uncontested concept. Is it meant here to refer to behavior as well as attraction?   If it is meant attraction, then there is no lawful reason to include the "towards adults" part at the end, since people who are attracted to youth, animals, objects, etc. should not be denied their equal rights on this basis alone so long as in their actions they abide by the law.

Since transgendered people would be covered by this as well, I think it's safe to assume that both would be defined under that term.  Do you feel that the amendment should explicitly define 'sexual orientation?'
Well that shows the complexity of the issue, since transgender isn't an attraction or a behavior but a gender identity.  I think it makes sense to spell out as best as possible what sort of discrimination this amendment seeks to counter.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: afleitch on August 21, 2012, 10:39:28 AM
Is there a definition of "sexual orientation" being used here?  This is not an uncontested concept. Is it meant here to refer to behavior as well as attraction?   If it is meant attraction, then there is no lawful reason to include the "towards adults" part at the end, since people who are attracted to youth, animals, objects, etc. should not be denied their equal rights on this basis alone so long as in their actions they abide by the law.

By sexual orienation it is understood to mean heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The American Psychological Association does not consider sexual attraction towards objects, animals, youth as a 'sexual orientation' as there can be no reciprocation. In the case of children there can be no legal reciprocation.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on August 21, 2012, 12:57:35 PM
I appreciate afleitch speaking to my concerns... I can't say I was persuaded by his comments however

Rather then specifically argue each point (such as women in combat) I will sum up my view and get down to brass tax.... men and women are different. We are made differently by our Creator, we have had different roles throughout human history, and we have different abilities. Not all men are the same and not all women are the same...it is not as if I want women to all be homemakers as that is not what I believe in the slightest. But to mandate women have a football team and be permitted to join the Boy Scouts... to put men and women in the same restroom...there are far too many variables here. Where there is discrimination, it must be fought...but I don't believe that includes activities or organizations which recognize our God-given differences between the sexes


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: afleitch on August 21, 2012, 04:02:28 PM
I appreciate afleitch speaking to my concerns... I can't say I was persuaded by his comments however

Rather then specifically argue each point (such as women in combat) I will sum up my view and get down to brass tax.... men and women are different. We are made differently by our Creator, we have had different roles throughout human history, and we have different abilities. Not all men are the same and not all women are the same...it is not as if I want women to all be homemakers as that is not what I believe in the slightest. But to mandate women have a football team and be permitted to join the Boy Scouts... to put men and women in the same restroom...there are far too many variables here. Where there is discrimination, it must be fought...but I don't believe that includes activities or organizations which recognize our God-given differences between the sexes

With respect, it appears you have not full read and understood my statement. I do not consider that our law should be affected by religious notions of 'difference between the sexes.' No one is denying that men and women are different, or any two people from any section of society are different but they have the right to be treated by the law as the same and have the same opportunities. I do not know where you think this law will cause men and women to 'use the same restroom'; I explained succinctly why that was and is a ludicrous position.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 21, 2012, 05:06:28 PM

Do you consider such an exemption needed in light of what the Constitution says about freedom of worship?

I think it would be necessary because making this a constitutional amendment rather than simply a law puts it on an equal footing with the freedom to worship, such that a judge could rule either way if the two were to conflict. A judge could rule for instance that freedom to worship is affected less by mandating female ordination than employment discrimination is without such a mandate.

The amendment could be reworded such that would only apply to government institutions and by doing so the potential problems would be greatly reduced while relying on the Atlasia-modified version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sex and (in Atlasia) sexual orientation. Applying such rights broadly as this amendment does would otherwise require private organizations to accept members of the opposite gender because the amendment does not grant the type of exemptions to private clubs that the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act grant. The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts however would be exempted because their members are not adults.

One problem that would remain even so is that this would mandate all male and all female bathrooms from public buildings. By drawing gender equality into the same lense as racial equality, having separate bathrooms would be discrimination. You would not be allowed to have separate bathrooms in a public institution for whites and blacks. If gender equality is legally the same as racial equality, you can't have separate mens' and womens' bathrooms. In order to keep separate bathrooms we would need some sort of clause affording some degree of inequality, perhaps something like:

Quote
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by Atlasia or by any Region on account of sex or sexual orientation except where necessary due to biological differences towards adults.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 21, 2012, 08:24:05 PM
I have to inform the committee that the legislation now under consideration will soon be on the floor. That means you have at minimum 72 hours, perhaps more if amendments and stuff drag it out, to complete consideration and vote on a recommendation for the whole Senate to consider.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on August 21, 2012, 10:06:48 PM
I appreciate afleitch speaking to my concerns... I can't say I was persuaded by his comments however

Rather then specifically argue each point (such as women in combat) I will sum up my view and get down to brass tax.... men and women are different. We are made differently by our Creator, we have had different roles throughout human history, and we have different abilities. Not all men are the same and not all women are the same...it is not as if I want women to all be homemakers as that is not what I believe in the slightest. But to mandate women have a football team and be permitted to join the Boy Scouts... to put men and women in the same restroom...there are far too many variables here. Where there is discrimination, it must be fought...but I don't believe that includes activities or organizations which recognize our God-given differences between the sexes

With respect, it appears you have not full read and understood my statement. I do not consider that our law should be affected by religious notions of 'difference between the sexes.' No one is denying that men and women are different, or any two people from any section of society are different but they have the right to be treated by the law as the same and have the same opportunities. I do not know where you think this law will cause men and women to 'use the same restroom'; I explained succinctly why that was and is a ludicrous position.
I apologize, however I was confused by this statement in your first comments....
Quote
All the ERA would outlaw, if it even still happens, is only having toilets exclusively for one sex.
which I took to mean that single-sex restrooms would not be permitted...

As far as the rest of this statement- I agree in theory but see no compelling reason to put this in law...to do so would allow for the extreme situations which I have described I believe. I'd be keen to know which specific rights you see being denied to women and gays (minus the right for gays to marry which I agree with you must be granted) that leads to this legislation?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 22, 2012, 12:24:37 AM

Do you consider such an exemption needed in light of what the Constitution says about freedom of worship?

I think it would be necessary because making this a constitutional amendment rather than simply a law puts it on an equal footing with the freedom to worship, such that a judge could rule either way if the two were to conflict. A judge could rule for instance that freedom to worship is affected less by mandating female ordination than employment discrimination is without such a mandate.

The amendment could be reworded such that would only apply to government institutions and by doing so the potential problems would be greatly reduced while relying on the Atlasia-modified version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sex and (in Atlasia) sexual orientation. Applying such rights broadly as this amendment does would otherwise require private organizations to accept members of the opposite gender because the amendment does not grant the type of exemptions to private clubs that the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act grant. The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts however would be exempted because their members are not adults.

One problem that would remain even so is that this would mandate all male and all female bathrooms from public buildings. By drawing gender equality into the same lense as racial equality, having separate bathrooms would be discrimination. You would not be allowed to have separate bathrooms in a public institution for whites and blacks. If gender equality is legally the same as racial equality, you can't have separate mens' and womens' bathrooms. In order to keep separate bathrooms we would need some sort of clause affording some degree of inequality, perhaps something like:

Quote
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by Atlasia or by any Region on account of sex or sexual orientation except where necessary due to biological differences towards adults.

My concern with that particular proposal is that it's far too vague and would allow judges to interpret the amendment in such a way that defeats its purpose.  How is 'necessary' defined in this context?  How would we set the standards for which exemptions can be permitted?

As I've stated in the bill's thread, I'm willing to consider modifying the text so that it's more specific and would assure people that the aforementioned single-gender institutions will still be allowed, but I don't think that change clarifies those protections.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 22, 2012, 08:04:51 PM
If no one has anything else to add in the next 24 hours, I'm going to move to a recommendation vote on the bill and then on TJ's amendment.  After that, we will move onto Ben's law.  The Senate is already considering the bill in question, so I think we should move on from this.

EDIT: I will also be including a recommendation vote on Clarence's amendment.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Equal Rights Amendment)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 22, 2012, 08:07:03 PM
Yeah I agree. There's no point in having two threads operating on the same topic simultaneously.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 23, 2012, 09:41:25 PM
The Committee will now vote on recommendations.  Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain on each.

1. On recommendation to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in its present form

2. On recommendation to amend Senator TJ's revisions to the legislation:
Quote
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by Atlasia or by any Region on account of sex or sexual orientation except where necessary due to biological differences towards adults.

3. On recommendation to amend Senator Clarence's revisions to the legislation:
Quote
AN AMENDMENT

To ensure the equal protection of all genders n the Republic of Atlasia.

Be it enacted by 2/3 of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia.

SECTION ONE. TITLE

This amendment may be cited as the 'Equal Rights Amendment.'

SECTION TWO. AMENDMENT

1.) Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by Atlasia or by any Region on account of sex or sexual orientation towards adults except where such inequality is necessary due to the biological differences between the sexes.

3) The right of assembly shall not be denied for groups or organizations whose purpose involves gender exclusivity.

2.) The Senate shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

4) This amendment does not guarantee the right to receive an elective abortion.



1. Aye
2. Nay
3. Nay


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 23, 2012, 10:00:05 PM
1. Nay
2. Aye
3. Abstain

Also, does this even matter now that the bill is on the floor anyway?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 23, 2012, 10:05:46 PM
1. Nay
2. Aye
3. Abstain

Also, does this even matter now that the bill is on the floor anyway?

Eh, not really, but nothing we vote on here actually takes effect under its own terms.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: LastVoter on August 25, 2012, 06:11:33 PM
1. Aye
2. Nay
3. Nay


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 25, 2012, 06:14:01 PM
By a vote of 2-1, the Committee recommends that the ERA be passed in its current form.

By a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator TJ's revisions to the legislation.

And finally, by a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator Clarence's revisions to the legislation.

()


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 25, 2012, 06:16:54 PM
The Committee will now consider the legislation introduced by Senator Ben.

The Holding CEOs Accountable Act

1.  Any CEO of a corporation convicted of a crime related to his tenure at the corporation shall forfeit the benefits associated with his position upon departure from the current position.

2.  If the CEO is convicted after he has begun to collect his retirement, then the retirement shall be severed for all future years.

3.  This legislation shall take effect for all convictions occurring after January 1, 2013.

To start, I would like to invite Senator Ben to the committee to defend his bill.  TJ, Seatown, opinions on this bill?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on August 25, 2012, 08:03:58 PM
This legislation is intended to prevent CEOs from committing crimes while holding a position of power, retiring, and reaping significant benefits associated with their time in that job.  It's a basic issue of fairness.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 26, 2012, 11:54:33 AM
The Committee will now consider the legislation introduced by Senator Ben.

The Holding CEOs Accountable Act

1.  Any CEO of a corporation convicted of a crime related to his tenure at the corporation shall forfeit the benefits associated with his position upon departure from the current position.

2.  If the CEO is convicted after he has begun to collect his retirement, then the retirement shall be severed for all future years.

3.  This legislation shall take effect for all convictions occurring after January 1, 2013.

To start, I would like to invite Senator Ben to the committee to defend his bill.  TJ, Seatown, opinions on this bill?

In Clause 2, how would stock options be treated? If an option has already been awarded but not vested, would the CEO still be able to receive it?

Also, why CEOs in particular as opposed to other executive officials? Is the company president not responsible in the same way? The CFO? Board members?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on August 26, 2012, 01:18:33 PM
TJ, Clause 2 includes all benefits, including stock options.  It would be as if the CEO had never worked at this company.  And I would happily see it amended to include everyone in a leadership position.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 26, 2012, 07:41:24 PM
I meant with regards to Clause 2 because if an option has already been awarded it could be argued that it is part of retirement he has already received before being convicted. Or would this require the executive to pay back retirement from previous years?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: Napoleon on August 26, 2012, 11:33:25 PM
The constitutionality of this should be determined.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 26, 2012, 11:40:08 PM
The constitutionality of this should be determined.

What part of the Constitution do you believe this law possibly violates?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: Napoleon on August 26, 2012, 11:43:46 PM
I don't know. I was hoping you all could handle that part. ;)


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 27, 2012, 12:10:34 AM
How many days cushion do you guys need before I can this to floor without hampering your deliberations? Its kind of next in line, you might say. :P


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 27, 2012, 12:13:05 AM
How many days cushion do you guys need before I can this to floor without hampering your deliberations? Its kind of next in line, you might say. :P

Three days?  Pleeeeeease? :(


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 27, 2012, 12:16:38 AM
I might have to shuffle the Education bill, but then when Kalwejt breaks the tie on the Antartic bill, the terror will once again be our heels.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 27, 2012, 01:38:46 PM
Ben, please answer TJ's question ASAP.  I want to try opening up recommendation votes by tomorrow night.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on August 27, 2012, 01:41:38 PM
I meant with regards to Clause 2 because if an option has already been awarded it could be argued that it is part of retirement he has already received before being convicted. Or would this require the executive to pay back retirement from previous years?

I'd argue that will have to be interpreted by a judge.  If the individual is still holding the option, and hasn't profited from it yet, then it is a future benefit and is forfeited.  If it has been awarded, then it can't be touched.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: afleitch on August 27, 2012, 05:05:44 PM
Senators; I'm curious about this legislation.

Firstly I agree with Senator TJ's concern over intent; 'convicted of a crime related to his tenure' could mean anything; they could be convicted of any manner of misdemeanors relating to their tenure/employment and suffer a penalty which someone lower does not (such as sexual harassment for example which is of course abhorrent but this law could be used to throw the book at a CEO but not someone on the board or in lower management guilty of a similar offence) The wording should reflect the crime which I presume is specifically financial mismanagement.

I would also be wary of the wording of 'forfeit the benefits associated with his position upon departure from the current position' as that contradicts Section 2; some of what has been accrued pension wise will have been from before The person held their current position of CEO.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 27, 2012, 06:46:15 PM
Ben, please answer TJ's question ASAP.  I want to try opening up recommendation votes by tomorrow night.

Don't worry Scott, Kal's resignation buys us some time. The Antartic bill will be stuck on the floor for several days until Nathan can be confirmed.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 29, 2012, 08:09:33 PM
When I said you didn't have to worry, I didn't mean that could sit back and knock off for two days. :P


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 29, 2012, 08:11:18 PM
Ben, please address Afleitch's concerns.

If the Committee members have any recommendations to make, please propose them now so that I may open a vote tomorrow.  I agree with the concept of the bill, though I agree that the wording should be changed so that it's more specific.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on August 29, 2012, 10:54:32 PM
Senators; I'm curious about this legislation.

Firstly I agree with Senator TJ's concern over intent; 'convicted of a crime related to his tenure' could mean anything; they could be convicted of any manner of misdemeanors relating to their tenure/employment and suffer a penalty which someone lower does not (such as sexual harassment for example which is of course abhorrent but this law could be used to throw the book at a CEO but not someone on the board or in lower management guilty of a similar offence) The wording should reflect the crime which I presume is specifically financial mismanagement.

I would also be wary of the wording of 'forfeit the benefits associated with his position upon departure from the current position' as that contradicts Section 2; some of what has been accrued pension wise will have been from before The person held their current position of CEO.

Your first concern: I think it needs to be amended to not only focus on CEOs; as to the misdemeanor, perhaps an amendment specifying either a felony or changing it to financial mismanagement.  Those both work.

My goal with the last two sections is to prevent a CEO from getting retirement benefits post conviction.  I'll let the more legally minded of my colleagues sort out details, as I wrote this in haste in order to get the idea out.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 29, 2012, 11:00:24 PM
'Financial mismanagement' is still probably going to need a precise definition.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 30, 2012, 09:47:25 PM
Okay, let's put this thing to rest.

Members, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain:

On recommendation to pass The Holding CEOs Accountable Act

On recommendation to amend Senator TJ's revisions to the legislation
The Holding CEOs Accountable Act

1.  Any CEO executive official or board member of a publically traded corporation convicted of a crime of corruption related to his tenure at the corporation shall forfeit the benefits associated with his position upon departure from the current position.

2. The term "pension" shall also include any stock options that the executive has been awarded but has not yet exercised.

3. Crimes of corruption include but are not limited to bribery, fraud, embezzlement, racketeering, and perjury.

4.  If the CEO is convicted after he has begun to collect his retirement, then the retirement shall be severed for all future years. The provisions in Section 1 will not apply to any payment already made to the executive official or board member.

5.  This legislation shall take effect for all convictions occurring after January 1, 2013.


1. Abstain.
2. Aye.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 30, 2012, 11:10:55 PM
Scott if you don't mind, I would like to try a revision of the bill to vote on with the final vote (Sorry for taking such a long time to post this, real life has been getting in the way ;)):

The Holding CEOs Accountable Act

1.  Any CEO executive official or board member of a publically traded corporation convicted of a crime of corruption related to his tenure at the corporation shall forfeit the benefits associated with his position upon departure from the current position.

2. The term "pension" shall also include any stock options that the executive has been awarded but has not yet exercised.

3. Crimes of corruption include but are not limited to bribery, fraud, embezzlement, racketeering, and perjury.

4.  If the CEO is convicted after he has begun to collect his retirement, then the retirement shall be severed for all future years. The provisions in Section 1 will not apply to any payment already made to the executive official or board member.

5.  This legislation shall take effect for all convictions occurring after January 1, 2013.

I still worry this could risk being struck down by a court as an ex post facto law in a world where corporate executives were actually present and had real money (though I doubt anyone here would take up their mantle) for the stock option provision, but without it, the bill would have no teeth whatsoever. In fact, without a true ex post facto law, all an executive would need to do is retire and cash in all his options immediately to avoid conviction, so this will have limited value.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 30, 2012, 11:16:32 PM
Haha, all right.  I added it to the ballot. :)


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on August 31, 2012, 11:56:02 AM
1. Nay
2. Aye


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 01, 2012, 08:19:42 PM
Scott, "Now you cut that fence and get this goddamned platoon on the move".


lol Band of Brothers line drop. :P


This bill will probably be on the floor tomorrow.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 01, 2012, 08:22:12 PM
:P I just PMed Seatown a minute ago.  This will finish tonight.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (The Holding CEOs Accountable Act)
Post by: LastVoter on September 01, 2012, 10:03:00 PM
1. Abstain
2. Aye


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 01, 2012, 11:08:32 PM
By a vote of 2-1, the Committee abstains on endorsing the legislation in its current form

By a vote of 3-0, the Committee recommends that Senator TJ's amendment be added to the bill.

()


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Capital Punishment Abolition Amend.)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 02, 2012, 07:17:34 PM
This committee will now consider the Capital Punishment Abolition Amendment, sponsored by Senator TJ.

Capital Punishment Abolition Amendment

Article VI of the Third Constitution Shall be amended as follows:
Quote
...
13. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, nor shall capital punishment be prescribed by a civilian court of law.
...

TJ, please speak on behalf of this legislation.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Capital Punishment Abolition Amend.)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on September 02, 2012, 07:43:59 PM
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I would like to acknowledge what a quick turn-around that was! :)

We have spent countless threads (and hours) as a senate body infighting about whether or when our constitution should expressedly ban conscription despite it not being in force. I would like to see the same discussion on another topic that is banned by statute: capital punishment.

Capital punishment where implemented has not been shown to be a crime deterrent. It is often more costly than life imprisonment because of the cost of many appeals. In many cases, capital punishment is used as an instrument of revenge for the family of a victim than to protect a community against violence. If the government can take a man's life in a civilian court where society could be protected as well with him behind bars, what can it not take? If there is an injustice in our constitution, the lack of protection of the right to life is the greatest. While the largest violation of this within our borders is in the multitude of legal abortions performed every day, the political lines we are so deeply beholden to prevent such a constitutional protection in a broad sense; however, I believe that our ideological divide is not a chasm so great that it cannot be crossed for this one simple measure. I believe this is a measure that can and should be passed in this committee, in our senate, and by the Atlasian public.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I yield back the rest of my time.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Capital Punishment Abolition Amend.)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 02, 2012, 08:07:35 PM
I endorse the amendment in its current form and recommend no changes. :)

Seatown, your thoughts?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Capital Punishment Abolition Amend.)
Post by: LastVoter on September 03, 2012, 12:35:23 AM
Obviously endorsed, I would have thought the Atlasian senate would have gotten around to banning capital punishment already.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Capital Punishment Abolition Amend.)
Post by: tmthforu94 on September 03, 2012, 11:44:16 AM
Obviously endorsed, I would have thought the Atlasian senate would have gotten around to banning capital punishment already.

Several attempts have been made in years past, and each time we've come close to abolishing it, but never quite close enough. :( With a strong effort, I think we could get it passed this time.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Capital Punishment Abolition Amend.)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 05, 2012, 02:09:21 PM
A recommendation vote will open tonight.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Capital Punishment Abolition Amend.)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 05, 2012, 11:47:58 PM
This may end up on the floor soon (if not now, then tomorrow some time), so I am glad that things progressed so smoothly.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Capital Punishment Abolition Amend.)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 06, 2012, 12:22:41 AM
We will now vote on the committee recommendation:

On recommendation to amend the Capital Punishment Abolition Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia



Aye.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Capital Punishment Abolition Amend.)
Post by: TJ in Oregon on September 06, 2012, 10:01:04 PM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Capital Punishment Abolition Amend.)
Post by: LastVoter on September 07, 2012, 01:01:44 AM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Capital Punishment Abolition Amend.)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 07, 2012, 01:14:44 AM
By a vote of 3-0, the Committee recommends that the Senate pass the Capital Punishment Abolition Amendment.

()

Due to the fact that the Senate session is almost over, and that our queue is currently empty (accomplished bills will be added soon), this Committee is now adjourned.

()


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Determining Business)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 30, 2012, 01:35:06 AM
()

As Chair, I call this committee to order.

So we're pretty much off to a rough start thanks to half the session being gone.  On top of that, I will be leaving the Senate in a month (possibly less) and the Senate is going to have to select someone else to fill my spot and the chairmanship.  Right now, I would like to get straight to business, so I'd appreciate it if my fellow members could make the debates and the votes when they are called... which I know one of you aren't terribly good at doing. :P

The bills on the queue that I think fit most under our jurisdiction are the Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act, the DREAM Act, the Go to the Doctor Instead Act, the Separate Elections Amendment, the Blast From the Game Reform Past Amendment and the Amendment to the Amendment Amendment.  There's no way in hell we're going to get through all that before they reach the floor, but would the members agree to considering those bills in that order?


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Determining Business)
Post by: Napoleon on September 30, 2012, 01:39:17 AM
Is the PPT actually going to bring the Go To the Doctor Instead Act to the Senate floor? It literally does nothing. Your committee could just skip over it if you find time to be short.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Determining Business)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 30, 2012, 01:41:52 AM
Is the PPT actually going to bring the Go To the Doctor Instead Act to the Senate floor? It literally does nothing. Your committee could just skip over it if you find time to be short.

It's definitely low priority compared to the other bills on the queue.  If we don't have enough time, I probably will have us skip it.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Determining Business)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 30, 2012, 01:57:55 AM
We can remove it from consideration, really. I don't want us to waste time on it when there are other more important things for us to discuss. In fact, I meant to remove it from the que awhile ago, so I'll go delete it.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Determining Business)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on September 30, 2012, 01:59:58 AM
I'm fine with your order, Scott. :)


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 30, 2012, 05:38:32 PM
Excellent.

To begin...

Quote
Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act

Recognizing the need from numerous gun violence incidents and the disorganized nature of Atlasia's gun laws, this Act is established in the spirit of maintaining Atlasian gun ownership laws in a single piece of statute.

Section 1: Housekeeping.

1. The Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Protection_of_the_Right_to_Bear_Arms_Act) is hereby repealed.

2. The Expansion of Gun Rights Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Expansion_of_Gun_Rights_Act) is hereby repealed.

Section 2: Gun Ownership Procedure.

1. All newly sold handguns, and individuals who purchase them, after the implementation of this Act, must be noted in a hereby established National Handgun Registry available to law enforcement officials.

2. One (1) billion dollars is hereby appropriated for a program to give individuals one-hundred (100) dollar incentives for entering their existing handguns into the National Handgun Registry.

3. Any citizen of Atlasia who has completed a safety course on gun use approved by the Department of Justice may apply for a license to conceal and carry a handgun on his person in public areas. The license shall be inoperative unless renewed every five years, requiring a fee of fifty (50) dollars.

4. Regions may be allowed, if they so desire, to ban concealed carry for non-law enforcement individuals if passed by their regional lawmaking process, though may not alter the license fee. In the absence of a regional concealed carry law, Clause 3 shall take precedent.

Section 2: Gun Sale Restrictions.

1. The following individuals shall be prohibited from possessing, transporting, or selling firearms:
a. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
b. Is a fugitive from justice,
c. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
d. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.
e. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
f. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
g. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship.
h. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or.
i. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
j. Has a record of being a felon.

2. Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, possessing at least two of the following, are hereby prohibited from possession, transportation, and sale:
a. Folding or telescoping stock.
b. Pistol grip.
c. Bayonet mount.
d. Flash suppressor.
e. Devices enabling the launching of grenades.

3. Semi-automatic handguns, with detachable magazines, possessing at least two of the following, are hereby prohibited from possession, transportation, and sale:
a. Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
b. Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
c. Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
d. A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

4. Semi-automatic shotguns, possessing at least two of the following, are hereby prohibited from possession, transportation, and sale:
a. Folding or telescoping stock
b. Pistol grip
c. Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
d. Detachable magazine.

5. Newly manufactured handgun and rifle ammunition magazines may not exceed eighteen bullets, while handgun and rifle ammunition magazines containing over thirty bullets shall be immediately illegal for possession, transportation, or sale.

6. No individual, who does not own a business involved in the sale of firearms, or operate gun shows, may purchase more than two firearms within a thirty (30) day period.

7. All newly manufactured packs of ammunition and firearms must be laser-engraved with a unique serial number during the manufacturing process to aid in the process of law enforcement.

8. Prior to gun sale, the customer must be subject to, and pass, a background check conducted by state and local government.

Senator Marokai, please speak in defense of this legislation.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 01, 2012, 10:02:51 PM
Marokai, please speak. :)


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 01, 2012, 10:12:07 PM
Alrighty! So, Atlasia basically has no codified national gun laws, and given many recent shootings, I think there's never been a more appropriate time to consider a national omnibus gun law.

The first thing I think is important, regardless of the contents, is that we at least create a good foundation as a starting point for any future gun safety laws, similar to how we now file trade agreements; into an omnibus to discourage a million different pieces of the statute.

Beyond that, though, I think it's finally time we get some decent safety laws. Much of this comes from the (partially repealed) Brady Bill in RL, the expired Assault Weapons Ban in RL, and some minor things that the gun safety movement has proposed in RL like serial numbers engraved into guns and ammunition, clip size, restricting the amount bought within a single month, things like that, as well as tightening background check laws and nationalizing a basic set of concealed carry laws and a registry.

It's mostly pretty centrist stuff, honestly. Almost nothing is really outright banned, people can still own plenty of guns, nothing prevents people from hunting, there's no big overreach, it's all just preventing excesses. People don't need to have enhanced weapons built for automatic firing or military grade weapons, people can get buy perfectly fine purchasing two firearms a month (which doesn't affect business), law enforcement could be greatly enhanced by a registry (which doesn't impede on civil liberties) and serial number engravings.. it prevents easily accessed crimes, encourages (with the buyout program) getting some guns off the street, and empowers law enforcement as it relates to gun crimes, while preserving the right to bear arms. Just doing so more responsibly.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 01, 2012, 10:37:00 PM
I generally agree with the components of this bill.  The only problem is that these regulations may come into conflict with the Constitution, because the Constitution is not clear if any restrictions are allowed at all (hence why I was a tad reluctant to bring up gun control legislation).  Afleitch told me last month that there haven't been significant gun restrictions passed before, so this bill might have to overcome some obstacles for it to become law.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 01, 2012, 11:23:13 PM
I generally agree with the components of this bill.  The only problem is that these regulations may come into conflict with the Constitution, because the Constitution is not clear if any restrictions are allowed at all (hence why I was a tad reluctant to bring up gun control legislation).  Afleitch told me last month that there haven't been significant gun restrictions passed before, so this bill might have to overcome some obstacles for it to become law.

If nothing else it's probably long overdue that we decide what is constitutional and not as far as gun safety laws go.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 02, 2012, 10:58:43 PM
Penny for your thoughts, Hagrid? :P


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 04, 2012, 01:44:42 PM
HAGRID!!!


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on October 04, 2012, 05:21:20 PM
I appreciate the sentiment of the bill, and there are a number of clauses I could support. However, I’m slightly concerned that some of its provisions could be construed as unconstitutional.

Namely, Article VI, Section 5 states that “the right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed.” Section 2, Clause 1 of this bill does exactly that for numerous groups of people. That being said, I agree that it should be harder for many of these people to own guns. To maintain the spirit of the bill but ensure it would survive a constitutional challenge, I’d recommend amending Section 2, Clause 1 to read:

Quote
The following individuals shall be prohibited from possessing, transporting, buying or selling firearms:

Also, on a personal note, I think some of these groups are being treated a little harshly. Being convicted for a money-related offense doesn’t make someone especially more or less likely to use a firearm to commit a crime. Same goes for being dishonorably discharged from the army—in fact, those people could actually be in a better position to use their firearms for causes of good in the event that a violent situation transpires.

Section 2, Clause 1 is also slightly concerning. While our constitution does not specifically grant privacy rights to our citizens, those rights are implied in Article VI, Section 9: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, communications and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.“ Could this new gun registry not be seen as an unreasonable search into people’s private property? Either way, I’m certainly against spending taxpayer dollars to encourage people to put their names on the registry.

Anyhow, those are most of my thoughts and concerns. I apologize for coming in late on this. Hopefully it won’t happen again.

Cheers.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 06, 2012, 12:31:41 AM
If no one has anything else to say, I will move to recommendation votes tomorrow.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on October 06, 2012, 01:37:57 PM
I'd like to know what the SoIA thinks of this bill.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 07, 2012, 02:01:06 PM
Under the rules, I must move to a final vote at 6:38 this afternoon.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 07, 2012, 05:49:12 PM
Time has expired.  Members, please vote on the recommendations.



On recommendation to pass the Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act

On recommendation to amend Section 2, Clause 1 to read: "The following individuals shall be prohibited from possessing, transporting, buying or selling firearms."


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on October 07, 2012, 05:55:58 PM
On recommendation to pass the Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act

Abstain

On recommendation to amend Section 2, Clause 1 to read: "The following individuals shall be prohibited from possessing, transporting, buying or selling firearms:"

Aye


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 07, 2012, 05:58:00 PM
On recommendation to pass the Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act
Aye.

On recommendation to amend Section 2, Clause 1 to read: "The following individuals shall be prohibited from possessing, transporting, buying or selling firearms."
Abstain.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 08, 2012, 03:46:04 PM
This vote will end at 6:38 whether Marokai votes or not.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 08, 2012, 07:17:42 PM
Sorry for being out of commission in the last couple days, haven't felt well. I suppose it doesn't matter now, but I would've voted aye to pass, nay to amend.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendations)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 08, 2012, 08:36:58 PM
Unfortunately, the committee fails to reach a consensus on either item. :P  Although technically, we recommend passage of the bill and are neutral (1-1-1) on Senator Hagrid's amendment.

()


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 08, 2012, 08:40:54 PM
This committee will now consider the Separate Elections Amendment, also sponsored by Senator Marokai Blue.

Quote
Separate Elections Amendment

1. The Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be elected independently of the President.

2. The election to the Vice Presidency shall take place at the same time and under the same rules as election to the Presidency.

3. This amendment shall not affect in any way other already existing constitutional frames of the Vice Presidency.

Senator, please speak on behalf of this legislation.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 09, 2012, 11:24:38 AM
I think the GOR should take a crack at it too if we have time, and we may not, since it is a Reform of the Gov't structure. Would you have a problem with that if time were to allow for it, Chairman Scott?


Don't let that Marokai screw around with you. If he doesn't respond be tonight, start sending him disturbing PMs every five hours till he appears. He deserves it and more after all the trouble he has caused this session, then to be so unavailable on top of thati s just a slap in the face that shouldn't be tollerated. :P


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 09, 2012, 12:41:09 PM
It's technically not my decision to make, but I'm hesitant to support doing that.  I don't think much came out of collaborative committee work the last time we tried it.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 09, 2012, 07:08:23 PM
I've argued in favor of various VP reforms in the past with roughly the same approach; I don't believe the Vice Presidency should be a political football and should be vastly improved, and the only way people will give it the respect and attention it deserves is if it is a position that stands independently as opposed to being the President's assistant.

Moreover, it attempts to prevent what I'm hereby coining as "Smid-Bacon King Syndrome" of very attractive Vice Presidential picks of very nice and appealing people, but ultimately fall very inactive because virtually no pressure is applied to them aside from them being on a ticket and smiling to get votes during an election. If each were elected independently, each candidate for each position would be picked on their own merits, and the latter would be held to a higher standard.

I believe, anyway.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 10, 2012, 01:23:04 AM
Why can't these people just become masochists like me? Then competative elections wouldn't be as necessary, as their sharpest critic is internal. >:D


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on October 10, 2012, 08:29:50 PM
I don't really have much to add to the discussion here. I don't see why this bill is necessary. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 10, 2012, 08:43:34 PM
I don't really have much to add to the discussion here. I don't see why this bill is necessary. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Well, I suppose that is the difference between us here. :P


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 10, 2012, 08:44:38 PM
I think the VP position needs to be reformed, but I don't see how electing one separately will help in assigning new duties to it or anything like that.  As Hagrid said, it isn't really broken for the fact that the VP and the President are elected as a ticket.  VP candidates already have the obligation to present themselves as qualified contenders for the position because what they do on the campaign trail (debates and whatnot) can impact the ticket's chances overall.

As someone who introduced VP reform legislation before, I can say from experience it's not an easy issue to reach a consensus on. :P


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 14, 2012, 12:26:57 PM
Are we all done here?  I will hold a vote on recommendations tonight.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 15, 2012, 03:33:11 AM
Just because someone is elected independently in a competative election, won't ensure their activity. Look at some of the Senators. Atleast three (seems like five of them this time) are inactive. They typically weight more towards the At-Large Senators, which are allegedly the best because they are unpredictable, but this time some Regionals have slipped in as well. Some of the most active Senators are typically Regional Senators from uncompetative regions (atleast historically, bgwah, Scott, and one more whom modesty forbids me mentioning ;)). The most competative region in the last three to four years, the mideast, has produced some of the worst Senators over that period in terms of activity (Sorry Ben, you actually in the mid range of this Senate :P), with one or two exceptions.

VPs (except Kalwejt a time long before, which gave me hope for something similar this time, but that of course didn't happen), have not worked out a Senate administration sharing agreement with the PPT. I know because there is this guy running the Senate, who gives me this information. ;) I also don't think they have been keeping the OSPR up to date since that duty was shifted over to that possition. We passed an amendment allowing joint cabinet-VP officeholders and my hope was that would lead to the VP taking an active role in pressing the cabinet to act and get stuff done. That hasn't happened either. The general argument has been that the VP has nothing to do. Well it has three areas right there that it could find enough to do to fill several hours a day, and yet none of it happens.

I think the VP needs some intense oversight, like the SoIA. And a change in the way the general public treats the innactivity of that official, like the SoIA. And a greater willingness to take extreme measures if they fail to do their job, like the SoIA. Hey Marokai, you gonna try and abolish the VP next? :P


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 15, 2012, 03:14:54 PM
Whoops, forgot about this.

Members, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.



1. On recommendation to pass the Separate Elections Amendment


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 15, 2012, 03:16:07 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Separate Elections Amendment)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on October 15, 2012, 08:16:15 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendation)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 20, 2012, 12:23:37 AM
SCOTT!!! WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?!!! FIVE DAYS! I expect more from you, I haven't needed to prod you as much, don't negate that record here at the end.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendation)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 20, 2012, 12:25:07 AM
Sorry.

Fails 2-0.

It's hard to remember to update this when enthusiasm is so lacking this session.

()


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Blast from Game Reform Past Amend.)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 20, 2012, 12:28:41 AM
Next on the list: the Blast from the Game Reform Past Amendment.



Quote
Blast From the Game Reform Past Amendment

Be it resolved that the following changes be made to the Atlasian Constitution:

1. The Preamble to Article 1 of the Constitution is amended to read "All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Legislature of the Republic of Atlasia. The Legislature shall be composed of the Senate and the Council of Governors."

2. The title of Section 5 is amended to read "Powers of the Legislature." The preamble of Section 5 is amended to read "The Legislature shall have the power save where limited by other provisions in the Constitution." The title of Section 6 is amended to read "Powers denied to the Legislature."

3. The title of Section 3 is amended to read "Legislature Rules and Legislation."

4. All mentions of the "Senate" in the section that will hereby be named "Powers of the Legislature" shall be replaced with "Legislature."

5. The Council of Governors shall consist of the primary heads of state of the regions. Each head of state shall have one vote. The votes of a majority of the membership shall be required to approve or amend any legislation.

6. Council votes on legislation shall be administered by a Governor chosen from all members of the Council of Governors. The election to choose the Council Administrator shall be held by the President of the Senate.

7. The Council of Governors may not introduce legislation independently, but may freely amend legislation sent to the Council by the Senate. In the event that an amended piece of legislation is approved by the Council of Governors, the amended legislation shall be sent back to the Senate for a final vote of approval. Council amendments may be overridden by the Senate with a two thirds vote.

8. If a piece of legislation that has been returned from the Council passes the Senate, or has been overridden by two-thirds vote, the legislation shall be sent to the President's desk as normal.

Senator Marokai, please advocate.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting on Recommendation)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 20, 2012, 01:32:42 AM
Sorry.

Fails 2-0.

It's hard to remember to update this when enthusiasm is so lacking this session.

()

Now you know what it is like for me all these years. Activity is contagious, you have to fight back!


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Blast from Game Reform Past Amend.)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 20, 2012, 01:50:52 AM
This is an old proposal I've modified that was en vogue with certain reformist elements back when I first joined Atlasia, designed to give Governors more influence and representation in national issues as well as, by extension, greatly improving the importance of those regional elections.

I must confess though, I feel sort of bizarre being expected to have some sort of point-by-point presentation for why this should be passed. Not every game reform proposal needs to have some sort of burning problem it is meant to address; this is a game, I hope people realize. Shouldn't "we should switches things up from time to time to keep things from getting stale because we're all supposed to be having fun and paying attention here" be reason enough for considering something? And why do we have committees again, while we're at it? I hate debating these issues twice. And what's the deal with airplane food!


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Blast from Game Reform Past Amend.)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 22, 2012, 12:30:46 AM
I am putting this at a recommendation vote on Tuesday.  Somehow, the Committee is going to have to find a new member and a new Chair.

As for this amendment, I'm incline to oppose this just because I don't see the urgent need for it and I like the system we have now.  Changes like this probably won't increase activity, because major changes to the game do not, most of the time.  I don't have much else to say on this, so I guess it's just a difference of opinion. :P


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting On Recommendation)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 23, 2012, 04:05:04 PM
Members, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.



1. On recommendation to pass the Blast from the Game Reform Past Amendment


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting On Recommendation)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 23, 2012, 09:07:12 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting On Recommendation)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 23, 2012, 09:09:35 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Voting On Recommendation)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on October 24, 2012, 12:26:21 PM
Nay

Sorry for the lateness.


Title: Re: SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: The Judiciary (Determining New Membership/Leadership)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 24, 2012, 01:33:59 PM
Thank you.

By a vote of 2-1, this Committee does not recommend passage of the Blast from the Game Reform Past Amendment.

()

And with that, I hereby resign as Chair and as a member of this Committee.