|
Title: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on September 07, 2005, 05:14:25 PM Here's where we vote on things.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on September 07, 2005, 05:18:34 PM Debate is hereby opened on these four pieces of legislation.
Third Trimester Abortion Ban Act Sponsor- Lt. Governor Hobbes 1. All abortions in the third trimester, except for cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, are hereby outlawed in the Pacific Region. 2. Any person who performs an illegal third trimester abortion will be sentenced to at least five years in prison. 3. Any mother seeking an illegal third trimester abortion shall be fined at least $50,000. Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill Sponsor- Vice President Emsworth 1. The manufacturer or seller of firearms or low-potency explosives shall not be held liable for death, physical injury, or property damage resulting from the use of said firearms or low-potency explosives. 2. Clause 1 of this section shall not apply where: (a) Death, physical injury, or property damage is the direct result of a defect in the design or manufacture of the product; (b) The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others; (c) The manufacturer or seller is an accessory to, or is otherwise unlawfully involved in, the relevant crime. Affirmative Action Bill Sponsor- Vice President Emsworth 1. For the purposes of this act, "affirmative action" is defined as granting special preference or other advantage in employment to individuals on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or economic status. 2. No agency of the government of the Pacific Region may use affirmative action in any decision relating to the selection, payment, treatment, or dismissal of any employee. 3. No public university of the Pacific Region may use affirmative action in any decision relating to the admission, treatment, or removal of any student. Anti-Drug Testing Act Sponsor- Vice President Emsworth 1. No public school may compel a student to submit to a drug test without probable cause. 2. No public school may make suspicionless or random drug testing a requirement for participation in any school activity. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Emsworth on September 07, 2005, 05:38:34 PM Third Trimester Abortion Ban Act Sponsor- Lt. Governor Hobbes 1. All abortions in the third trimester, except for cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, are hereby outlawed in the Pacific Region. 2. Any person who performs an illegal third trimester abortion will be sentenced to at least five years in prison. 3. Any mother seeking an illegal third trimester abortion shall be fined at least $50,000. I also strongly object to clause 3, which is in my opinion unduly harsh. As to the rest of the bills: I support them wholeheartedly. ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on September 08, 2005, 09:40:55 PM Voting is open on two amendments. The first will add protecting the health of the mother to the reasons for exemption from the abortion restriction law, the second will strike Section 3 from the abortion law. Both amendments offerred by Emsworth.
Please vote now on each item independently. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on September 09, 2005, 08:16:23 AM aye on oth amendments. I would also like to offer one, bringing the five year penalty in section 2. down to 18 months.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: JohnFKennedy on September 09, 2005, 12:05:19 PM Aye on both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Emsworth on September 09, 2005, 02:06:41 PM Aye on both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on September 09, 2005, 02:12:36 PM No on both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on September 10, 2005, 05:14:58 PM Aye on both, although I want to see "health" interpreted very strictly.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on September 12, 2005, 04:58:36 PM Aye on both, although I want to see "health" interpreted very strictly. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on September 15, 2005, 02:31:25 PM At just after 7pm, voting on the amendments will close and it will open on the other subsequently proposed amendments.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on September 15, 2005, 10:05:34 PM Voting closed. New text of the abortion bill.
Third Trimester Abortion Ban Act Sponsor- Lt. Governor Hobbes 1. All abortions in the third trimester, except for cases of rape, incest, saving the life of the woman, and protecting the health of the woman, are hereby outlawed in the Pacific Region. 2. Any person who performs an illegal third trimester abortion will be sentenced to at least five years in prison. We are now voting on: 1. Hugh's suggested amendment bringing the penalty for doctors down to 18 months in prison. 2. Emsworth's suggested amendment removing the incest exemption. 3. Alcon's and WMS's suggested amendment specifying the physical health of the mother be the only exemption under health, and not some loosely defined mental trauma. (I hope this wording fits their intent, if they object to this interpretation I'll shut down voting on this amendment). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on September 16, 2005, 01:58:45 AM aye on the first two amendments, nay on the third
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Emsworth on September 16, 2005, 05:36:48 AM Aye on amendments 1 and 2; No on amendment 3.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on September 16, 2005, 03:46:34 PM We are now voting on: 3. Alcon's and WMS's suggested amendment specifying the physical health of the mother be the only exemption under health, and not some loosely defined mental trauma. (I hope this wording fits their intent, if they object to this interpretation I'll shut down voting on this amendment). You would have to ask Alcon on that. Can I vote on the first two measures now and wait until Alcon clarifies matters to vote on the third measure? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on September 16, 2005, 09:23:39 PM We are now voting on: 3. Alcon's and WMS's suggested amendment specifying the physical health of the mother be the only exemption under health, and not some loosely defined mental trauma. (I hope this wording fits their intent, if they object to this interpretation I'll shut down voting on this amendment). You would have to ask Alcon on that. Can I vote on the first two measures now and wait until Alcon clarifies matters to vote on the third measure? Yes Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on September 16, 2005, 11:32:39 PM I am no good at writing law, and I have no idea what the result of my doing so would be. I'll leave the wording up to WMS and vote:
Aye Aye And whatever WMS votes on that item, if he thinks it is satisfactory, since we share a similar position on the issue. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: True Democrat on September 17, 2005, 10:53:36 AM Aye on the first one
Nay on the second and third Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on September 17, 2005, 05:56:01 PM 1. No
2. No 3. Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on September 19, 2005, 02:36:43 PM 1. Aye.
2. Aye. 3. How about this? "No mental condition shall be acceptable as a reason for abortion unless certified by medical professionals that a failure to allow the abortion to proceed would cause severe mental trauma." Yes, I'm sure it could be better written, but I'm not a lawyer. Oh, and Aye on 3. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on September 19, 2005, 07:38:00 PM def. nay on option three then. There are more 'mental conditions' then depression, you know.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on September 20, 2005, 01:13:49 PM def. nay on option three then. There are more 'mental conditions' then depression, you know. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on September 20, 2005, 04:57:26 PM that some mental conditions are significantly bad for abortions granted on mental health to be acceptable.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on September 20, 2005, 05:33:00 PM that some mental conditions are significantly bad for abortions granted on mental health to be acceptable. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on September 20, 2005, 07:24:37 PM which is why people should vote nay.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on September 23, 2005, 11:07:15 AM Third Trimester Abortion Ban Act
Sponsor- Lt. Governor Hobbes 1. All abortions in the third trimester, except for cases of rape, saving the life of the woman, and protecting the health of the woman, are hereby outlawed in the Pacific Region. 2. Any person who performs an illegal third trimester abortion will be sentenced to at least eighteen months in prison. Are there any other suggested Amendments? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on September 23, 2005, 06:50:30 PM i believe my amendment passed, John :p
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on September 23, 2005, 09:24:26 PM I accidentally copied the un-Amended bill. :( John sad now.
Fixed it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on September 24, 2005, 12:52:40 PM Since there are no more Amendments, I hereby open voting on the full bill.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on September 24, 2005, 07:01:06 PM I vote aye.
And John, smile :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on September 24, 2005, 08:05:01 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on September 24, 2005, 08:18:02 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Emsworth on September 25, 2005, 06:08:52 PM This seems to be a very good compromise (including a health exception, in particular).
Aye. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on September 28, 2005, 10:16:56 AM Aye
EDIT: Oh geez. I voted in a Pacific Thread... sorry about that! I keep forgetting where I am, silly me. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: True Democrat on September 28, 2005, 05:37:23 PM Abstain
I believe the incest exception should be in there. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on October 01, 2005, 02:32:19 PM Voting on the Third Trimester Abortion Ban Act has closed. The final vote is 4 Yes, 0 No, and 1 Abstention.
This Act has passed. The Governor will now sign the bill into law. xGovernor John Ford Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on October 01, 2005, 03:01:05 PM I will now open voting on our second piece of legislation, a minimum wage law. As you know, our nation's minimum wage was struck down by the Supreme Court, and as a result teenagers everywhere cannot afford the latest Gwen Stefani CD.
In my campaign, I pledged to establish a minimum wage and I now hope to fulfill that promise. I introduce the following bill: Minimum Wage Act 1. The minimum hourly wage shall be set at $7.00 per hour I hereby open debate. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Emsworth on October 01, 2005, 03:04:08 PM I propose the following amendment:
2. The minimum wage shall be indexed to inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. Any change in the minimum wage shall take effect at the beginning of the next fiscal year. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on October 03, 2005, 01:12:46 AM I propose the following amendment: 2. The minimum wage shall be indexed to inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. Any change in the minimum wage shall take effect at the beginning of the next fiscal year. Do I correctly understand the amendment means that the new wage will take effect Jan. 1 of 2006 at $7 and then in Jan. 1 of 2007 would be adjusted for inflation? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on October 03, 2005, 01:17:10 AM fiscal years start 1st July :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on October 03, 2005, 02:22:26 AM I would like to enter a late aye vote on the previous vote.
Sorry about that. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on October 05, 2005, 09:44:43 PM With no further debate occurring, I will introduce for a vote this version of the bill unless there is objection:
Minimum Wage Act 1. The minimum hourly wage shall be set at $7.00 per hour 2. This wage shall increase annually commensurate with the rate of inlfation as measured by the CPI a. Adjustments based on inflation shall take place at the start of each fiscal year. 3. This minimum wage wage shall take effect On January 1, 2006 I know this isn't with the exact amendments proposed, and if anyone really objects they can, I'm just rying to get this voted on, the abortion bill seemed to be on the floor for 3 weeks. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: True Democrat on October 05, 2005, 09:51:50 PM I think it should be a little lower, but nonetheless I vote Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on October 05, 2005, 11:36:29 PM I vote in favour.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on October 05, 2005, 11:45:05 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on October 05, 2005, 11:47:14 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 06, 2005, 01:22:48 AM nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on October 06, 2005, 01:49:01 AM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on October 06, 2005, 11:43:48 PM Nay.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on October 07, 2005, 12:19:33 AM Nay.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on October 12, 2005, 09:15:40 PM By a vote of 5-3, this act has passed.
I open voting starting now on the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill and the Affirmative Action Abolition Bill. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: True Democrat on October 13, 2005, 01:08:50 AM Aye on both
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on October 13, 2005, 01:14:12 AM Aye on both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: minionofmidas on October 13, 2005, 05:46:19 AM Nay on both
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on October 13, 2005, 09:26:49 PM For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on October 13, 2005, 11:47:12 PM For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated. You'll be the one interpeting it, of course. You're our chief judicial officer. Have you taken the oath yet, btw? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on October 14, 2005, 04:24:42 PM Aye on both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Emsworth on October 14, 2005, 05:23:38 PM For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated. There is no way to determine whether a person actually knows or does not know something. If someone who is obviously insane (for example) wants to buy a gun, the store owner can claim that he does not actually "know" whether the individual is sane or not. However, if the person purchasing the gun shows obvious signs of delusion, then the store owner "reasonably should know" that he is not sane. The same line of reasoning applies when the purchaser is a young child, for example. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on October 14, 2005, 07:26:37 PM Nay
Abstain Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on October 14, 2005, 09:52:48 PM For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated. You'll be the one interpeting it, of course. You're our chief judicial officer. Have you taken the oath yet, btw? Really? Cool!! :D Nope, no oath yet. Perhaps my former region will forgive me for interfering, but to clarify the meaning: There is no way to determine whether a person actually knows or does not know something. If someone who is obviously insane (for example) wants to buy a gun, the store owner can claim that he does not actually "know" whether the individual is sane or not. However, if the person purchasing the gun shows obvious signs of delusion, then the store owner "reasonably should know" that he is not sane. The same line of reasoning applies when the purchaser is a young child, for example. Oh oh oh oh oh. So it basically covers someone who is prohibited by law from buying a gun. Ok then. Thank you!! :) Aye on both. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on October 14, 2005, 11:27:41 PM For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated. You'll be the one interpeting it, of course. You're our chief judicial officer. Have you taken the oath yet, btw? Really? Cool!! :D Nope, no oath yet. Lt. Governor is Chief Judicial Officer, so yeah. Head on over to the government board and find the "Swearing in of New Office Holders" thread and take the oath. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on October 15, 2005, 01:14:59 AM For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated. You'll be the one interpeting it, of course. You're our chief judicial officer. Have you taken the oath yet, btw? Really? Cool!! :D Nope, no oath yet. Lt. Governor is Chief Judicial Officer, so yeah. Head on over to the government board and find the "Swearing in of New Office Holders" thread and take the oath. Neat!! Thank you very much! :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on October 19, 2005, 09:19:02 PM The Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill has passed by a vote of 4-2.
I sign it. xJohn Ford The Affirmative Action Abolition Bill has passed by a vote of 4-1 with 1 abstention. I sign it. xJohn Ford Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 03, 2005, 12:24:49 AM Time for spending cuts! With the election over, the distractions are gone and its time to buckle down.
Administrator Reduction Act 1. The Pacific Legislature empowers the Governor and the heads of the Regional Agencies to reduce the number of administrative position in the Pacific Government by 5%. 2. Estimated savings will be $800 million. Salary Reduction Act 1. All salaries of Regional government employees shall be reduced by 5%. 2. Teachers shall be exempted from this act. 3. Law enforcement officers shall be exempted from this act. 4. Estimated savings will be $1.5 billion. Consolidation Act 1. Whereas the operations of the Regional government are currently dispersed, and whereas it is beneficial to have them centralized; 2. The Agencies of the Regional Government shall have their headquarters relocated and consolidated into city of Sacramento. 3. Existing facilities shall be used where possible, and new facilities constructed when necessary. 4. This legislation will save an estimated $3.1 billion. Total savings will be $5.4 billion. And I wish to Amend our tax code: Gambling Revenue Amendment to Tax Code 1. All casinos within the Pacific Region shall pay a 20% tax on their revenues 2. This tax is comparable to the level of tax that state government's placed on casinos prior to the unification of the tax code 3. Estimated Revenues are $3 billion I open debate on all four bills. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 03, 2005, 06:24:56 AM ad. red: how many jobs, approx., will be cut by this? 5% might seem smalll, but with regional government being a huge employer in the Pacific, that'll affect a lot of lives. How many?
sal. red. add a lower limit. IE, all regional governmental employees earning over, say,. $30,000 a year (adjusted for inflation) shall have...blah blah blah, although less then 5% for those earning less then $31,500 etc. consolidation act-No, thanks. Rather, consodlidate each department in a different place. IE, have education in seattle, taxes and rev enue in nevada, health in portland, etc etc. Otherwise, thousands of people who couldn't afford or don't want to live in San Francisco would lose their jobs, which is far worse then the loss of a potential 5 billion, which would of course be nice. But money will still be made through consolidation. As is, there is no way I can support this bill (it's not an act until it passes, btw). gambling revenue...I think this is OK, but there are some things that must be considered: 1. Las Vegas. How would this affect tourism? 2. Will the government become 'addicted' to gambling revenue, as has happened in other countries? 1, I don't really know. 2, it's likely; very few governments try and stop gambling addiction if they need the revenue to keep the budget in the black. So, to limit the harm of this, I suggest we ban all gambling that relies on chance rather then skill (or a combination of the two). IE, sports betting, most card games etc. would be legal, but things like the pokies illegal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 03, 2005, 12:39:58 PM ad. red: how many jobs, approx., will be cut by this? 5% might seem smalll, but with regional government being a huge employer in the Pacific, that'll affect a lot of lives. How many? sal. red. add a lower limit. IE, all regional governmental employees earning over, say,. $30,000 a year (adjusted for inflation) shall have...blah blah blah, although less then 5% for those earning less then $31,500 etc. consolidation act-No, thanks. Rather, consodlidate each department in a different place. IE, have education in seattle, taxes and rev enue in nevada, health in portland, etc etc. Otherwise, thousands of people who couldn't afford or don't want to live in San Francisco would lose their jobs, which is far worse then the loss of a potential 5 billion, which would of course be nice. But money will still be made through consolidation. As is, there is no way I can support this bill (it's not an act until it passes, btw). gambling revenue...I think this is OK, but there are some things that must be considered: 1. Las Vegas. How would this affect tourism? 2. Will the government become 'addicted' to gambling revenue, as has happened in other countries? 1, I don't really know. 2, it's likely; very few governments try and stop gambling addiction if they need the revenue to keep the budget in the black. So, to limit the harm of this, I suggest we ban all gambling that relies on chance rather then skill (or a combination of the two). IE, sports betting, most card games etc. would be legal, but things like the pokies illegal. As for the consolidation bill, I think its frankly an awful idea to have each of the departments in a different city. There's no government in this country that does such a thing, and there's a reason. I would be open to moving the Departments to Sacramento instead of San Fran, and that might actually turn out to be cheaper because they already have a lot of government buildings and its not wildly far from the Capital. I don't expect the gambling tax to affect tourism because its nearly identical to the state tax on casinos already in place IRL. If the IRL tax doesn't affect tourism, why would this tax? As for salary reduction, I had no choice but to do it across the board because the data the GM and I had was sufficiently limited that there's no way to go through and find what the savings would be for a graduated salary reduction like that. I'll have to ask the GM how many jobs would be cut by the administrative reduction program. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on November 03, 2005, 01:31:50 PM Sacramento I could live with. San Francisco is too expensive and is way too vulnerable to natural disasters. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 03, 2005, 02:49:07 PM Sacramento I could live with. San Francisco is too expensive and is way too vulnerable to natural disasters. :) Sounds like a consensus is forming behind Sacramento as the seat of the bureacracy. That's more than fine with me, I had only selected San Fran because it is the capital (Don't blame me, I voted for San Diego). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on November 03, 2005, 06:10:42 PM Sacramento I could live with. San Francisco is too expensive and is way too vulnerable to natural disasters. :) Sounds like a consensus is forming behind Sacramento as the seat of the bureacracy. That's more than fine with me, I had only selected San Fran because it is the capital (Don't blame me, I voted for San Diego). Excellent. 8) San Diego would've been fun as well as a capital, but heck, all the capitals are out yonder from my perspective anyway. :D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 03, 2005, 09:25:42 PM Excellent, Consolidation Act is amended as follows:
1. San Francisco shall be replaced by Sacramento as the seat of bureacracy 3. Savings estimate shall be changed to $3.1 billion Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on November 04, 2005, 06:16:36 PM Excellent, Consolidation Act is amended as follows: 1. San Francisco shall be replaced by Sacramento as the seat of bureacracy 3. Savings estimate shall be changed to $3.1 billion Hurrah! ^_^ Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 04, 2005, 08:30:09 PM I still won't vote for it. It's going to destroy the economies of cities like Olympia, Santa Fe, Salem, Carson City and Juneau; and significantly affect other cities.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 04, 2005, 10:25:12 PM I'd be happy to support the gambling revenue amendment bill, but I believe we should, at or near the time of passage, pass a bill limiting gambling in the region to games that include an element of skill only.
Re: salary reduction. There has to be a lower limit. Sam can make up numbers with an educated guess if he has to; but we shouldn't be taking 5% off someone who only earns, say, $20,000. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 06, 2005, 04:50:56 PM Should I understand the lack of debate as a quiet agreement with the proposed legislation?
Any objections should be made here so the legislation can be amended. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 06, 2005, 10:20:59 PM Sacramento is a terrible choice for capital.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 07, 2005, 12:03:42 AM Sacramento is a terrible choice for capital. Its not the capital, San Francisco is the capital. We chose to put the bureacracy in Sacramento because its reasonably close to the capital and it already has the infrastructure to support the administration of government. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 05:30:12 PM I'm going to open debate on all these bills, having amended them when reasonable as per the requests of citizens:
Administrator Reduction Act 1. The Pacific Legislature empowers the Governor and the heads of the Regional Agencies to reduce the number of administrative position in the Pacific Government by 5%. 2. Estimated savings will be $800 million. Salary Reduction Act 1. All salaries of Regional government employees shall be reduced by 5%. 2. Teachers shall be exempted from this act. 3. Law enforcement officers shall be exempted from this act. 4. Estimated savings will be $1.5 billion. Consolidation Act 1. Whereas the operations of the Regional government are currently dispersed, and whereas it is beneficial to have them centralized; 2. The Agencies of the Regional Government shall have their headquarters relocated and consolidated into city of Sacramento. 3. Existing facilities shall be used where possible, and new facilities constructed when necessary. 4. This legislation will save an estimated $3.1 billion. Gambling Revenue Amendment to Tax Code 1. All casinos within the Pacific Region shall pay a 20% tax on their revenues. 2. This tax is comparable to the level of tax that state government's placed on casinos prior to the unification of the tax code. 3. Gambling shall not be extended to or legalized in any jurisdiction where it is not legalized at the time of this bill's passage. 3. Estimated Revenues are $3 billion. Please vote yes! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 09, 2005, 07:03:36 PM 1. Numbers of people lose lose their jobs, please.
2) Did you ask sam for an estimate if a lower limit is imposed of, say, $30,000? 3) For reasons i've already stated, I won't support this; it'll hurt the economies f many small, government towns in the region and obviously the people who live in them. 4) I'll support that. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 11, 2005, 01:57:45 AM Sam's numbers are on the way, btw. Just waiting, because he's been quite busy with the things that matter.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 11, 2005, 03:01:12 AM Fair enough. Would you consider amending the legislation once his numbers are received?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 11, 2005, 03:35:49 AM Fair enough. Would you consider amending the legislation once his numbers are received? Initial indications are that there won't be much need for revision of the Salary Reduction Bill, because there aren't many administrators making less than $30,000 a year. I'd be willing to amend depending on these new numbers. I would be willing to amend the other bill only if it cannot pass in its current form. Waste in government will never be scaled back if I am unwilling to to tackle the problem head on. Efforts like this always get derailed by concerns over the well being of the people being let go. But someone has to worry about the taxpayer's right not to have to pay people to do make-work jobs. Reducing unnecessary personnel is long overdue, and I'm determined to do it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sam Spade on November 15, 2005, 11:53:45 PM Hugh and John Ford:
1. Estimated number of people who lose their jobs: 2,000 2. Savings if admins under $30,000 are not fired: $775 million, as opposed to $800 million. Most admins in state (regional) government make more than $30,000 a year. Very few make less than $30,000 a year. Set the range at $50,000 or $60,000, that's a different story. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 15, 2005, 11:58:49 PM I think $30,000 is a reasonable amount. It's not good that we'd be reducing wages of those under, say $40,000; but sometimes tough choices have to be made.
Can I also ask for an estimation of how this will affect the economies of cities and towns such as Juneau and Olympia, where government is a/the major industry? Just an opinion would suffice. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sam Spade on November 16, 2005, 12:04:11 AM I think $30,000 is a reasonable amount. It's not good that we'd be reducing wages of those under, say $40,000; but sometimes tough choices have to be made. Can I also ask for an estimation of how this will affect the economies of cities and towns such as Juneau and Olympia, where government is a/the major industry? Just an opinion would suffice. It would probably affect it a decent bit negatively. However, you would expect Sacramento to boom and I doubt it would have any affect on the conomy at all. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 16, 2005, 01:29:07 AM I have amended the legislation to prevent administrators making less than $30,000 from being fired, as Hugh requested.
Amended legislation: Administrator Reduction Act 1. The Pacific Legislature empowers the Governor and the heads of the Regional Agencies to reduce the number of administrative position in the Pacific Government by 5%. 2. Administrators currently making less than $30,000 a year will not be fired. 3. Estimated savings will be $775 million. Salary Reduction Act 1. All salaries of Regional government employees shall be reduced by 5%. 2. Teachers shall be exempted from this act. 3. Law enforcement officers shall be exempted from this act. 4. Estimated savings will be $1.5 billion. Consolidation Act 1. Whereas the operations of the Regional government are currently dispersed, and whereas it is beneficial to have them centralized; 2. The Agencies of the Regional Government shall have their headquarters relocated and consolidated into city of Sacramento. 3. Existing facilities shall be used where possible, and new facilities constructed when necessary. 4. This legislation will save an estimated $3.1 billion. Gambling Revenue Amendment to Tax Code 1. All casinos within the Pacific Region shall pay a 20% tax on their revenues. 2. This tax is comparable to the level of tax that state government's placed on casinos prior to the unification of the tax code. 3. Gambling shall not be extended to or legalized in any jurisdiction where it is not legalized at the time of this bill's passage. 3. Estimated Revenues are $3 billion. Are there any other suggested amendments? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 16, 2005, 01:42:10 AM My $30,000 thing was for the second act, and I think it fits better there; if the ones earning less then $30,000 include people who 'should' be fired, then let them be.
Either way, it's safeguarded, so I support 1, 2 and 4. And whilst the consolidation act wouldn't have a negative effect on the general regional economy, I don't want to see more ghost towns. I won't be supporting three, personally. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 16, 2005, 02:26:24 AM Well, I'll have to tell Sam he's got more work to do if it was for act #2. I'd imagine that the savings would be $50 million which is the same 3.2% difference we see in the first act. That's just a guess, but its the same number of people so I'd guess its a similar change in savings.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 16, 2005, 07:33:42 AM 1 and 2 are satisfactory. I think i've been pigheaded enough, honestly. It'd be better in 2; it works in 1.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 17, 2005, 05:49:57 PM With all this resolved, I declare voting open!
Voting begins now and continues until 2:50 pm Pacific Time on Thursday, Novemeber 24th. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 19, 2005, 03:29:17 AM 1. Aye
2. Aye 3. Nay 4. Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on November 19, 2005, 04:56:12 AM 1. Aye
2. Aye 3. Aye 4. Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on November 19, 2005, 06:21:44 AM Aye to all.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on November 19, 2005, 07:17:45 PM Aye to all.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 19, 2005, 07:25:59 PM Nay to all
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 25, 2005, 05:10:28 PM All four bills have passed, voting over.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 26, 2005, 03:04:33 AM I'm hopeless at legalese, but could we pass a bill banning all gambling on games of luck (or, only allowing those games with an element of skill)? Perhaps with the exclusion of Nevada; if it's necessary.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 26, 2005, 01:21:33 PM I'm hopeless at legalese, but could we pass a bill banning all gambling on games of luck (or, only allowing those games with an element of skill)? Perhaps with the exclusion of Nevada; if it's necessary. We could, but I would probably not support such a bill. I know you've mentioned this before, but I don't recall the reasoning. What was it again? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 26, 2005, 10:11:14 PM if we're going to have a budget dependant on gambling money, let's at least make it gambling money that isn't totally dirty. Games of pure chance-with a very low chance of winning-are the most addictive and most destructive, especially things like pokie machines. I have no problem with allowing games of skill-poker, sports bettingm, etc., even if there is also luck involved. But pure luck games, especially those with a very low chance of success, should be banned. The government shouldn't be rasing revenue that way.
Lotteries could be exempted, because it's not like you put in $500 a day on lottery tickets. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 26, 2005, 10:36:19 PM if we're going to have a budget dependant on gambling money, let's at least make it gambling money that isn't totally dirty. Games of pure chance-with a very low chance of winning-are the most addictive and most destructive, especially things like pokie machines. I have no problem with allowing games of skill-poker, sports bettingm, etc., even if there is also luck involved. But pure luck games, especially those with a very low chance of success, should be banned. The government shouldn't be rasing revenue that way. I see what you're saying, but I don't totally agree. I think people need to be responsible for their own actions to some extent. If they play a game like a slot machine that is based only on luck, and lose, then they have to be the ones to take responsibility for that choice. If it eases your mind, gambling revenue is barely 1% of all our Region's revenue. We could end the gambling tax entirely and still we'd have a $8 billion surplus this year. Lotteries could be exempted, because it's not like you put in $500 a day on lottery tickets. Well, maybe you don't. ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on November 30, 2005, 11:40:00 PM I want to open debate on my Constitutional Amendment:
Amendment to Restructure Pacific Government Section 1 1. Section 1:6 of the Pacific Constitution shall be amended to read "The Lieutenant Governor shall be charged with maintainging and updating the Region's Atlas Wiki page, and shall supervise all elections and referenda. But if the Lieutenant Governor is absent or unable to act (due to conflict of interest or otherwise), the Governor may designate another citizen of the Pacific to temporarily perform his duties." Section 2 1. The position of Chief Justice of the Pacific Region is hereby created. 2. The Chief Justice shall be the presiding judge in all cases, criminal, civil, or otherwise, and will be empowered to determine the outcome of said cases. 3. The Chief Justice is empowered with the authority of Judicial Review, and may review the Constitutionality of laws, if a citizen petitions him to do so, in an open hearing. 4. The Chief Justice shall take his position on appointment by the Governor, and upon confirmation by the Pacific Legislature. His appointment shall be for an term of life with good behavior. He must take the oath of office before assuming his duties. 5. The requirements to be named Chief Justice are that a person must be a citizen of the Pacific, a registered voter, and have at least 200 posts. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 01, 2005, 12:09:22 AM if we can't fill 1 position, how can we fill two?
Otherwise, reasonable proposal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 01, 2005, 01:50:54 AM if we can't fill 1 position, how can we fill two? Otherwise, reasonable proposal. I'll find someone for Chief Justice. I actually already have a guy in mind, I'm just not sure he'll say yes. As for running for Lt. Governor, that is a problem that remains unresolved. I'm going to try and nudge some folks into the race, but we'll see. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 03, 2005, 12:35:45 AM Opening vote on ratification of the recently passed Amendment to eliminate balanced budget requirement.
Amendment to Remove the Balanced Budget Requirement §1. Clauses 8-10 of Article I, Section 8 in the Constitution are hereby stricken. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 03, 2005, 12:36:01 AM I vote aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Peter on December 03, 2005, 11:25:00 AM By Order of the Supreme Court, the vote on the Amendment to Remove the Balanced Budget Requirement is hereby ordered stopped.
Details may be found here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=32637.msg733783#msg733783). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 03, 2005, 02:33:34 PM K
Stop voting everyone. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 05, 2005, 02:26:40 PM Even though we can't yet vote on the Federal Amendment, I propose we start voting on my Amendment to the Pacific Constitution, which changes the job of lt. Governor and creates a Chief Justice, since no one has objected to its contents.
Start voting. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 06, 2005, 05:24:11 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on December 06, 2005, 04:52:18 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 06, 2005, 06:03:26 PM I can see it now: Chief Justice Wildcard
*barf* NAY. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: True Democrat on December 07, 2005, 09:13:27 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on December 08, 2005, 09:10:55 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 12, 2005, 07:36:35 PM (they ayes have it...)
I will be suggesting a couple of bills shortly, inluding a version of the water purity bill. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 12, 2005, 07:46:12 PM (they ayes have it...) I will be suggesting a couple of bills shortly, inluding a version of the water purity bill. Hey, that's my job! ;) Anyway, uh, well, they ayes have it! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 12, 2005, 10:42:59 PM I'll suggest them, you propose them. Fair?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 13, 2005, 12:19:44 AM I'll suggest them, you propose them. Fair? Fair. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 13, 2005, 12:21:24 AM Belated aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 14, 2005, 07:56:54 AM First suggestion:
Pacific Water Purity Bill 1. Water shall not be commercially supplied to any resident of the Pacific unless it meets the guidelines determined by the EPA. 2. Violation of clause 1 of this act shall lead to imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or a monetary fine not more than $25,000, or both. 3. The Governor may suspend or reduce such drinking water regulations as he deems fit during times of drought or national or regional emergency. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 14, 2005, 12:58:22 PM The bill is to be considered submitted. I open debate on the bill.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 16, 2005, 04:57:37 AM Ooooh, can I propose something?!?!?!?!??!?! If I can, here's my proposal thing.
THE PACIFIC EXPANSION ACT 1) Whereas, British Columbia is an oppressed and desperate province of Canada 2) Whereas, Ottawa is looking to remove British Columbia from Canada 3) Therefore, the Pacific Region will offer Canada one billion dollars for the province of British Columbia. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 16, 2005, 05:01:17 AM Could I ask the GM for confirmation of s2) of Jesus's bill?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MasterJedi on December 16, 2005, 09:28:56 AM Might I suggest to Hugh that for the Pacific Water Purity Initiative that he add the link? :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 16, 2005, 08:31:14 PM I see no need and would prefer the legislation remain 'wholly Atlasian'.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 17, 2005, 04:37:24 PM With a lack of debate, i will presume there is no objection to openng a vote here, and I herby open voting on Hugh's bill.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 18, 2005, 07:47:40 PM (this one)
Pacific Water Purity Bill 1. Water shall not be commercially supplied to any resident of the Pacific unless it meets the guidelines determined by the EPA. 2. Violation of clause 1 of this act shall lead to imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or a monetary fine not more than $25,000, or both. 3. The Governor may suspend or reduce such drinking water regulations as he deems fit during times of drought or national or regional emergency. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 18, 2005, 07:48:21 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 24, 2005, 06:38:39 PM By 1-0, the bill passes.
I sign it. x John Ford I now open voting on the confirmation of Wildcard as Chief Justice. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 25, 2005, 05:27:45 AM See, MasterJedi? I told you i'd make sure the water purity thingie passed in the Pacific :D
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MasterJedi on December 25, 2005, 11:33:14 AM See, MasterJedi? I told you i'd make sure the water purity thingie passed in the Pacific :D Yay! ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on December 25, 2005, 07:34:40 PM This thread needs to have more publicity. I didn't even know we were voting on anything. :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 25, 2005, 11:13:39 PM And now we;re voting on something enw: The confirmation of a Chief Justice.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2005, 07:18:45 PM I can see it now: Chief Justice Wildcard *barf* NAY. And again I vote NAY! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on December 28, 2005, 08:17:21 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 29, 2005, 10:15:29 AM aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on December 29, 2005, 11:14:16 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on December 30, 2005, 06:55:17 PM Aye for Wildcard. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 30, 2005, 07:11:02 PM I have a serious proposal. Currently, edited votes do not count.
Could we possibly make so that for regional elections, becuase I don't think we can do anything about federal elections, so that if a vote is edited within 10 or 20 minutes or something of the original posting, then it is still valid? The eidt would still have to be before the polls closed, though. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 30, 2005, 08:27:46 PM Aye, and I like Jesus's proposal.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 31, 2005, 09:45:19 PM By 5-1, Wildcard is confirmed as Chief Justice. Congratulations, and what a way for him to ring in the new Year.
As for Jesus' proposal, I would like to see him craft legislation on that and see waht people think of his proposal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 31, 2005, 11:39:22 PM Okay.
The Twenty Minutes Bill 1) Whereas, ballots (in the form of posts) that are edited are considered invalid and not counted. 2) Whereas, too commonly voters, often new to Atlasia, are unaware of this rule and edit their vote because of a mistake they made. 3) Whereas, voters are disenfranchised because of this rule. 4) Therefore, any ballot edited within twenty minutes of the original post shall be considered valid. 5) However, an edit must take place before the polls close. If the edit takes place after the polls close then that ballot will be invalid. For example, if a voter casts their ballot five minutes before the polls close, they only have five minutes to edit their vote. But, if an edit takes place after the results are certified, then the original ballot will still be counted. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on December 31, 2005, 11:41:23 PM I open debate on Jesus' bill.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on January 01, 2006, 01:44:03 AM Seems like an okay bill to me.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on January 03, 2006, 11:57:24 AM As there appear to be no amendments offered, I open Jesus' bill for a vote.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 03, 2006, 08:34:25 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on January 03, 2006, 09:52:14 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 03, 2006, 10:07:29 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on January 03, 2006, 11:57:56 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: True Democrat on January 04, 2006, 07:08:32 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on January 04, 2006, 11:57:06 AM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on January 10, 2006, 01:11:38 PM By a vote of 6-0, the bill passes.
x John Ford Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on January 10, 2006, 03:32:30 PM I wish to open debate on my proposed three strikes law. Here is the bill's text:
Quote Pacific Regional Three Strikes Law SECTION 1. (1) Any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includes all of the elements of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately. The terms of the present offense and each enhancement shall run consecutively. (2) This subdivision shall not be applied when the punishment imposed under other provisions of law would result in a longer term of imprisonment. There is no requirement of prior incarceration or commitment for this subdivision to apply. (3) The Legislature may increase the length of the enhancement of sentence provided in this subdivision by a statute passed by majority vote. (4) As used in this subdivision, "serious felony" means a serious felony listed in the existing Regional Penal Code. (5) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this law to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious and/or violent felony offenses. (7) Notwithstanding any other law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d), the court shall adhere to each of the following: SECTION 2. (1) There shall not be an aggregate term limitation for purposes of consecutive sentencing for any subsequent felony conviction. (2) Probation for the current offense shall not be granted, nor shall execution or imposition of the sentence be suspended for any prior offense. (3) The length of time between the prior felony conviction and the current felony conviction shall not affect the imposition of sentence. (4) There shall not be a commitment to any other facility other than the state prison. Diversion shall not be granted nor shall the defendant be eligible for commitment to the a Regional rehabilitation facility. (5) The total amount of credits awarded pursuant to relevant articles of the Criminal Code shall not exceed one-fifth of the total term of imprisonment imposed and shall not accrue until the defendant is physically placed in the state prison. (6) If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count. (7) If there is a current conviction for more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6), the court shall impose the sentence for each conviction consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law. (8) Any sentence imposed pursuant to this law will be imposed consecutive to any other sentence which the defendant is already serving, unless otherwise provided by law. (d) Notwithstanding any other law and for the purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, a prior conviction of a felony shall be defined as: (1) Any offense defined in Regional criminal codes as a violent felony or any offense defined in Regional criminal codes as a serious felony in this state. The determination of whether a prior conviction is a prior felony conviction for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be made upon the date of that prior conviction and is not affected by the sentence imposed unless the sentence automatically, upon the initial sentencing, converts the felony to a misdemeanor. None of the following dispositions shall affect the determination that a prior conviction is a prior felony for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive: (A) The suspension of imposition of judgment or sentence. (B) The stay of execution of sentence. (C) The commitment to the State Department of Health Services as a mentally disordered sex offender following a conviction of a felony. (D) The commitment to a rehabilitation center or any other facility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from the state prison. (2) A conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that, if committed in The Pacific, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. A prior conviction of a particular felony shall include a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that includes all of the elements of the particular felony as defined. (3) A prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a prior felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement if: (A) The juvenile was 16 years of age or older at the time he or she committed the prior offense. (B) The juvenile was found to be a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law. (C) The juvenile was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court. (D) For purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, and in addition to any other enhancement or punishment provisions which may apply, the following shall apply where a defendant has a prior felony conviction: (1) If a defendant has one prior felony conviction that has been pled and proved, the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction. (2) (A) If a defendant has two or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d) that have been pled and proved, the term for the current felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater of: (i) Three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction subsequent to the two or more prior felony convictions. (ii) Imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years. (B) The indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment for which a consecutive term may be imposed by law. Any other term imposed subsequent to any indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison. (f) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be applied in every case in which a defendant has a prior felony conviction as defined in subdivision (d). The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior felony conviction except as provided in paragraph(2). (2) The prosecuting attorney may move to dismiss or strike a prior felony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior conviction. If upon the satisfaction of the court that there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior felony conviction, the court may dismiss or strike the allegation. (g) Prior felony convictions shall not be used in plea bargaining. The prosecution shall plead and prove all known prior felony convictions and shall not enter into any agreement to strike or seek the dismissal of any prior felony conviction allegation except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f). (i) If any provision of subdivision (b), inclusive, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of those subdivisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of those subdivisions are severable. SECTION 3. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious or violent felony offenses, and to protect the public from the imminent threat posed by those repeat felony offenders, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately. This is essentially the California Three Strikes Law, the nation's toughest. It differs in the following ways: 1. References to the state of California have been replaced by references to the pacific Region. 2. Refernces to chaapter and section of the California Penal Code are removed, because we use the Arizona Penal Code as a basis for our criminal laws. 3. A section that excludes meth dealers from recieving a strike has been removed, toughening Regional drug laws. If anyone thinks I've made errors editing the bill's text so it is adapted to the Region, some kind of technical error, don't be afraid to point it out. Probably the best way to gather info about the bill, though, is not to read the text but to read material on the effect of the CA Three Strikes Law passed in 1994 by referendum and reaffirmed in 2004 by referendum. Debate is open. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 11, 2006, 03:15:58 AM re:three strikes. I support it, if those strikes are for serious crimes. My suggestion is a "50 point system", with crimes like speeding 5mph over the speed limit worth 1-2 points, and murder 50+, etc. Once at 50 points, they must be imprisoned for life (or a very long period); at 10 they can be for a short period, 20 for a medium length period, 30 for a meduium sentence and must be inprisoned, 40 for a long sentence and must be imprisoned. Points 'expire' after a set period, say 10 years, so that if an 80 year old has accumulated 50 speeding tickets he isn't put away for the rest of his life. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on January 11, 2006, 03:27:52 AM re:three strikes. I support it, if those strikes are for serious crimes. My suggestion is a "50 point system", with crimes like speeding 5mph over the speed limit worth 1-2 points, and murder 50+, etc. Once at 50 points, they must be imprisoned for life (or a very long period); at 10 they can be for a short period, 20 for a medium length period, 30 for a meduium sentence and must be inprisoned, 40 for a long sentence and must be imprisoned. Points 'expire' after a set period, say 10 years, so that if an 80 year old has accumulated 50 speeding tickets he isn't put away for the rest of his life. This actually sounds like a pretty good idea at face value, though I haven't examined it thoroughly yet. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on January 11, 2006, 12:41:04 PM re:three strikes. I support it, if those strikes are for serious crimes. My suggestion is a "50 point system", with crimes like speeding 5mph over the speed limit worth 1-2 points, and murder 50+, etc. Once at 50 points, they must be imprisoned for life (or a very long period); at 10 they can be for a short period, 20 for a medium length period, 30 for a meduium sentence and must be inprisoned, 40 for a long sentence and must be imprisoned. Points 'expire' after a set period, say 10 years, so that if an 80 year old has accumulated 50 speeding tickets he isn't put away for the rest of his life. If you want to write up a competing bill, you're welcome to. That goes in a very different direction than I was planning to go. From the day I announced my plan to do this after the story came out that crime was up, I intended to re-introduce the California 3 strikes law, so that's why I did it this way even though you had made that suggestion. I think that idea is sufficiently divergent from this proposal that it would make more sense to write your bill from the ground up rather than try to amend the current initative. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on January 12, 2006, 01:12:15 PM Does anyone else have anything to say about this proposal? And does Hugh intend to write up a competing bill?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 12, 2006, 08:12:36 PM I will do so shortly. Give me a ouple of days.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 15, 2006, 09:26:48 PM 50-point Lawbreakers' Bill
1. In all instances in which the law of the Pacific region is broken, the lawbreaker shall receive a demerit point, or multiple points, dependent on the severity of their crime. 2. The Court shall have the ability to determine both point levels attached to crimes and sentence length, but the latter shall have the following guidelines: --------I. Imprisonment shall not be an option until an individual has reached 10 points. At such time, they become eligible for a term of up to two months. --------II. At 11 points, the maximum length increases by a month, and this process continues until 20 points, at which time the sentence may reach 1 year. --------III. At 30 points, incarceration is not optional, and must last for over one year, but no greater a length of time then three years. --------IV. At 32, 34, 36 and 38 point levels, both the minimum and maximum sentence lengths increase by six months. --------V. At 40 points, incarceration is not optional and must last a minimum of 8 years, and a maximum of 20. --------VI. Each point over 40 adds six months to both the minimum and maximum sentence lengths. --------VII. At 50 points, incarceration for life is a mandated sentence. --------VIII. If 50 or more points are assigned for a single crime, the death penalty shall become an option. 3. Appeals based on a perception that the points assinged were too high shall be heard by the same courts as those that attend to length of sentence appeals. 4. Points may be granted a 'sunset clause' by the Court. It may be determined that points shall no longer count after a certain period of time. This is specifically important for lower-level crimes. No sunset clause can be any earlier then 2 years after a crime in committed, however. Needs a little bit of work tidying up, but that's the general idea. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on January 16, 2006, 02:00:33 PM Eh, I don't know about letting the court choose how many points a convict gets.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on January 17, 2006, 10:45:12 PM Anyone else have comments?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 18, 2006, 01:29:22 AM Eh, I don't know about letting the court choose how many points a convict gets. So you'd support legislative mandatory sentencing? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on January 18, 2006, 01:35:12 AM Eh, I don't know about letting the court choose how many points a convict gets. So you'd support legislative mandatory sentencing? The law ought to specify some kind of parameters for what the sentence ought to be. This is an interesting idea, but I think it needs to be polished up. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on January 18, 2006, 05:49:03 PM Let me provide an example of what I mean now that I have some time, let's say I break a law somewhere. The law would say you can get 8-10 years for that crime or something. There are parameters so that if I get a really zealous jury, I get 10 years but not 25 years. If I get a less zealous jury I get 8 instead of say, 2. This way, if a jury is involved in an emotional case, like say a kid gets sexually assaulted, they don't impose a penalty driven by emotion of the case they have to work within the confines of the law that's broken. This is why I say there should be some kind of guidelines in the law as to what penalties should be.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on January 19, 2006, 10:32:02 PM Does anyone else have anything to say?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 20, 2006, 03:19:34 AM Let me provide an example of what I mean now that I have some time, let's say I break a law somewhere. The law would say you can get 8-10 years for that crime or something. There are parameters so that if I get a really zealous jury, I get 10 years but not 25 years. If I get a less zealous jury I get 8 instead of say, 2. This way, if a jury is involved in an emotional case, like say a kid gets sexually assaulted, they don't impose a penalty driven by emotion of the case they have to work within the confines of the law that's broken. This is why I say there should be some kind of guidelines in the law as to what penalties should be. Let's just not haqve the juries determining the sentence then :p Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on January 26, 2006, 01:44:10 PM Its been quite a long while, so I'm going to open a vbote on my Three Strikes Law proposal.
If Hughento wants to continue pursuing his point system, I'd certainly urge him to refine the law and present it to the people for their signatures. Its a innovative idea that deeserves a fair public hearing in the future. Voting open now. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on January 29, 2006, 03:56:20 AM Aye, I suppose.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 30, 2006, 01:36:59 PM Oh, OK. Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 02, 2006, 06:13:19 PM Three Strikes has passed.
I'm going to post our budget tonight, and we can debate it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on February 02, 2006, 08:54:05 PM So what are we discussing if you don't mind me asking?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 02, 2006, 09:10:55 PM We're about to start debating my 2006 budget plan, as soon as I post it.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 03, 2006, 01:59:06 AM Proposed FY2006 Budget!
Here is the basic outline budget, same format as the last one we passed. -$265.0 billion in expenditures -Department of Education - $104.6 billion -Department of Health - $68.7 billion -Department of University $34.0 billion -Department of Corrections - $24.2 billion -Department of Transportation - $12.0 billion -Department of Resources - $3.7 billion -Department of Housing - $1.0 billion -Administrative Costs - $16.8 billion I am also proposing two changes to the tax rates. I am proposing cutting the top tax rate from 15% to 14% and the second highest rate from 12% to 11%. I hereby open debate and open the floor to suggested changes. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on February 03, 2006, 02:29:57 AM -Department of Corrections - $24.2 $24.2? That might buy lunch for a row of prisoners. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 03, 2006, 12:07:44 PM -Department of Corrections - $24.2 $24.2? That might buy lunch for a row of prisoners. ;) I'm sorry, tere should be a "billion" at the end of all these numbers obviously. I'll add that. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on February 03, 2006, 04:43:16 PM Your plan look's pretty good but here is what I would do I would cut some spending from the Department of U to around 33 Billion and I would also try to use some of that money to add more spending to the the Departments of Health and Education.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on February 03, 2006, 05:15:45 PM Out of curiosity, what is "Department of University", anyway, and how are its functions not covered by the Department of Education?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on February 03, 2006, 06:05:35 PM I think the Department of U covers Regional Goverment Aid to the University's and Community College's so they can cover some of their additional cost's.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 03, 2006, 06:10:43 PM Out of curiosity, what is "Department of University", anyway, and how are its functions not covered by the Department of Education? It runs the University system. All public universities are administered under this department. The Department also handles all the formerly state government aid and loans to college students, which is a subtantial sum. This year's budget is a large enough sum to fund the construction of the University of the Pacific Region which is a goal our Region set out to achieve in December of 2004 under Proposition 8 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=13711.msg297579#msg297579). We can now fund the planning and groundbreaking of that project. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on February 03, 2006, 08:02:56 PM On an unrealated subject wouldn't prop 5 of the propostions be covered by the Federal Goverment?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on February 03, 2006, 08:05:19 PM Out of curiosity, what is "Department of University", anyway, and how are its functions not covered by the Department of Education? It runs the University system. All public universities are administered under this department. The Department also handles all the formerly state government aid and loans to college students, which is a subtantial sum. This year's budget is a large enough sum to fund the construction of the University of the Pacific Region which is a goal our Region set out to achieve in December of 2004 under Proposition 8 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=13711.msg297579#msg297579). We can now fund the planning and groundbreaking of that project. I probably missed something, for which I apologize, but why is it a department unto itself? Aren't universities part of education? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on February 03, 2006, 08:08:32 PM So you are arguing to cut the Dempartment of U?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on February 03, 2006, 08:12:43 PM So you are arguing to cut the Dempartment of U? Not "cut", per se, given that I'm not proposing we remove any money from the budget, but I'm asking why the Department of Education can't do what the Department of University does (since, logically speaking, universities are part of education). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on February 03, 2006, 08:20:55 PM We could combine the two.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 09, 2006, 10:00:13 PM I'd like to hear how many people support combining the Departments of University and Education or if people that is a suprfluous idea. I am open to either, actually.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on February 09, 2006, 10:06:41 PM Well, I'd first like to hear why the Department of University was created in the first place. It seems like kind of specific thing to dedicate an entire department to. At the very least, the Department of Education should be renamed if we keep the Department of University, given that it will no longer be the only department that covers education.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 09, 2006, 10:35:51 PM Well, I'd first like to hear why the Department of University was created in the first place. It seems like kind of specific thing to dedicate an entire department to. At the very least, the Department of Education should be renamed if we keep the Department of University, given that it will no longer be the only department that covers education. In California, I'm pretty sure the Universities are actually not in the Department of Education. They are run by the Board of Regents, an independent body. The Department of Ed in California only deals with primary and secondary schools. So seperating the two seemed very natural to someone who's home state does in fact seperate the two. The Department of University on its own has the third largest budget in the Regional government. It does have a mission that seems specialized on the surface, but its actually quite extensive when you dig deeper. So, it was the size of the budget and the fact that in California the two things are seperated if memory serves that led to them being two seperate departments. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on February 10, 2006, 01:46:14 AM Well, I'd first like to hear why the Department of University was created in the first place. It seems like kind of specific thing to dedicate an entire department to. At the very least, the Department of Education should be renamed if we keep the Department of University, given that it will no longer be the only department that covers education. In California, I'm pretty sure the Universities are actually not in the Department of Education. They are run by the Board of Regents, an independent body. The Department of Ed in California only deals with primary and secondary schools. So seperating the two seemed very natural to someone who's home state does in fact seperate the two. The Department of University on its own has the third largest budget in the Regional government. It does have a mission that seems specialized on the surface, but its actually quite extensive when you dig deeper. So, it was the size of the budget and the fact that in California the two things are seperated if memory serves that led to them being two seperate departments. Well, I'm not really knowledgable about this stuff, it was just something that occurred to me when looking at their two names. I think that the Department of Education could stand to have its name changed to clear up any confusion people might have about its function if we're going to leave the Department of University, but that's a rather minor thing. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 10, 2006, 01:48:53 AM I'd hardly expect someone from British Columbia to know the nooks and crannies of the California state government. I certainly don't know much about the BC government. Just explaining why it made sense to me at the time.
I'm going to ask the GM if there are any saving from consolidating the two. If there are savings, I plan to amend my budget proposal and combine the two departments. If there are no savings, or if there is no response, then I would suggest we just keep things as is. Are there any other issues of concern folks have? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sam Spade on February 13, 2006, 02:36:22 AM I'm going to say no to any savings in a merger of the two departments.
This is precisely because they cover such distinct areas of government; there really are no major overlapping functions that I can find that would be saved by consolidation. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 13, 2006, 03:12:17 PM With the GM's notice of no savings, the bill shall not be amended. 24 hours for any one to voice any further concerns they have on this budget.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 14, 2006, 05:04:18 PM Debate has essentially died down. Since there are no further comments, I open the vote on the 2006 Budget.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on February 15, 2006, 03:31:43 AM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on February 16, 2006, 12:59:36 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on February 21, 2006, 07:44:56 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on February 21, 2006, 07:46:54 PM Are we going to move on to another issue now or what are we going to do now?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 21, 2006, 07:53:27 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 21, 2006, 07:57:08 PM Are we going to move on to another issue now or what are we going to do now? I think this one remains open for a week, and if anyone wants to introduce anything after that, they may. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 22, 2006, 01:00:25 AM Are we going to move on to another issue now or what are we going to do now? I think this one remains open for a week, and if anyone wants to introduce anything after that, they may. You need 3 signatures, actually, to introduce something (or get the Gov. to introduce it for you, as he doesn't need signatures). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 22, 2006, 01:43:49 AM Are we going to move on to another issue now or what are we going to do now? I think this one remains open for a week, and if anyone wants to introduce anything after that, they may. You need 3 signatures, actually, to introduce something (or get the Gov. to introduce it for you, as he doesn't need signatures). I know, but I will be instituting a policy of introducing everything myself, within reason. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 23, 2006, 02:56:36 AM With a vote of 4-0, the 2006 Budget has passed.
These ideas were proposed to me. Legalese is not my greatest talent, but I hope I conveyed these well enough into bills. Amendment to Abolish Chief Justice of the Pacific Region 1. Whereas, the position of Chief Justice of the Pacific Region position is functionally useless; 2. The position of Chief Justice of the Pacific Region is hereby abolished. 3. All powers held by the Chief Justice of the Pacific Region will be reverted to their statuses prior to the establishment of the position. Regional Office Establishment Proposition 1. Whereas, citizens far from the regional capital of Sacramento are unable to obtain documentation; 2. Small regional offices will be established in the following cities: a. The city of Olympia, Thurston County, Washington; b. The city of Salem, Marion County, Oregon; c. The city of Boise, Ada County, Idaho; d. The city of Helena, Lewis and Clark County, Montana; e. The independent city of Carson City, Nevada; f. The city of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona; g. The city of Albuquerque, Bernalillo, New Mexico; h. The independent city of Juneau, Alaska, municipal proper; i. And the urban district of Honolulu, Honolulu County, Hawaii. 3. Regional offices will provide and archive documentation and manage cases for forwarding to the central office in Sacramento. 4. An additional $100 million from the current clerical budget will be appropriated yearly for salaries and building maintainence. I will now open up discussion on these issues. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on February 23, 2006, 01:34:20 PM With a vote of 4-0, the 2006 Budget has passed. These ideas were proposed to me. Legalese is not my greatest talent, but I hope I conveyed these well enough into bills. Amendment to Abolish Chief Justice of the Pacific Region 1. Whereas, the position of Chief Justice of the Pacific Region position is functionally useless; 2. The position of Chief Justice of the Pacific Region is hereby abolished. 3. All powers held by the Chief Justice of the Pacific Region will be reverted to their statuses prior to the establishment of the position. Leaning in favor of this. Regional Office Establishment Proposition 1. Whereas, citizens far from the regional capital of Sacramento are unable to obtain documentation; 2. Small regional offices will be established in the following cities: a. The city of Olympia, Thurston County, Washington; b. The city of Salem, Marion County, Oregon; c. The city of Boise, Ada County, Idaho; d. The city of Helena, Lewis and Clark County, Montana; e. The independent city of Carson City, Nevada; f. The city of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona; g. The city of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, New Mexico; h. The independent city of Juneau, Alaska, municipal proper; i. And the urban district of Honolulu, Honolulu County, Hawaii. 3. Regional offices will provide and archive documentation and manage cases for forwarding to the central office in Sacramento. 4. An additional $100 million from the current clerical budget will be appropriated yearly for salaries and building maintainence. I will now open up discussion on these issues. While I understand your logic in choosing the state capitals, Albuquerque is actually way easier for most New Mexicans to get to...you can actually park sometimes. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 23, 2006, 10:34:55 PM While I understand your logic in choosing the state capitals, Albuquerque is actually way easier for most New Mexicans to get to...you can actually park sometimes. :P Well, in most cases I was going to re-establish the capitals because of the negative effects on the local economies. However, Santa Fe is decently off regardless. Do you know how it would affect Santa Fe's economy if the government was removed? All feedback is appreciated. My knowledge of New Mexico is lacking. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Duke on February 23, 2006, 11:57:54 PM The capital is actually San Francisco. The government offices are only in Cowtown (Sacto) to save money.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 24, 2006, 03:29:39 AM The capital is actually San Francisco. The government offices are only in Cowtown (Sacto) to save money. Thanks for pointing that out. I should have clarified it. This is only administative stuff. Sacramento is not a convenient location for obtaining historical maps and other things that cannot be made into electronic format. Having state archives would be fairly inexpensive, help the local economies, and make it more convenient for locals. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on February 24, 2006, 07:31:13 PM While I understand your logic in choosing the state capitals, Albuquerque is actually way easier for most New Mexicans to get to...you can actually park sometimes. :P Well, in most cases I was going to re-establish the capitals because of the negative effects on the local economies. However, Santa Fe is decently off regardless. Do you know how it would affect Santa Fe's economy if the government was removed? All feedback is appreciated. My knowledge of New Mexico is lacking. Not too badly - there's a ton of left-libertarian Californian Yuppies there. :P Most of the government workers in Santa Fe commute from the Albuquerque Greater Metropolitan Area anyway, because it's so !@#$ing expensive to rent or buy anything in Santa Fe. This would probably improve their incomes a bit from the gas savings, if nothing else. :D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 25, 2006, 03:37:49 AM I changed it to Albuqerque, then. Thanks, WMS!
I doubt this will raise much objection, so unless someone minds, we'll vote on this at the same time as the other two bills (which will result in a shorter debating period). Bestality Criminalisation Act 1. The abominable act of bestiality, which is defined as gross sexual imposition, sexual assault, or the committing of a deviant sexual act with an animal, shall be illegal throughout the Pacific Region. 2. Persons convicted of bestiality shall be fined a minimum of $500 or a maximum of $2,000 and/or sentenced to a minimum of six months in jail or a maximum of five years in jail. 3. This law should not be interpreted as banning sexual acts between members of the species homo sapiens. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on February 25, 2006, 06:58:56 AM Bestality Criminalisation Act 1. The abominable act of bestiality, which is defined as gross sexual imposition, sexual assault, or the committing of a deviant sexual act with an animal, shall be illegal throughout the Pacific Region. 2. Persons convicted of bestiality shall be fined a minimum of $500 or a maximum of $2,000 and/or sentenced to a minimum of six months in jail or a maximum of five years in jail. 3. This law should not be interpreted as banning sexual acts between members of the species homo sapiens. Technically speaking, if section 3 is needed to exclude sexual acts between members of the species homo sapiens from falling under this bill, would it not be the case that this bill will ban sexual acts between all other species (i.e., rabbits will be charged with bestiality for going at it)? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on February 25, 2006, 03:15:41 PM You just can't oppose this admemdment because a human having sex with an animal is like molsesting a baby.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 26, 2006, 02:42:00 AM Bestality Criminalisation Act 1. The abominable act of bestiality, which is defined as gross sexual imposition, sexual assault, or the committing of a deviant sexual act with an animal, shall be illegal throughout the Pacific Region. 2. Persons convicted of bestiality shall be fined a minimum of $500 or a maximum of $2,000 and/or sentenced to a minimum of six months in jail or a maximum of five years in jail. 3. This law should not be interpreted as banning sexual acts between members of the species homo sapiens. Technically speaking, if section 3 is needed to exclude sexual acts between members of the species homo sapiens from falling under this bill, would it not be the case that this bill will ban sexual acts between all other species (i.e., rabbits will be charged with bestiality for going at it)? I'm reasonably sure animals can't be charged with crimes. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on February 27, 2006, 11:46:09 PM I changed it to Albuqerque, then. Thanks, WMS! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 27, 2006, 11:53:52 PM I changed it to Albuqerque, then. Thanks, WMS! I just looked at Census data, and what you said about commuting from Albuquerque does not appear to be true. Santa Fe is not affluent, and house prices there aren't way too much over Albuquerque. I'm inclined to turn it back, and have for now. Besides, Albuquerque is much bigger than Santa Fe. Again, I'm inclined to think that it would damage Santa Fe's economy too much to make moving to Albuquerque a bad idea. I'd like your comments on this. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on February 27, 2006, 11:58:15 PM I changed it to Albuqerque, then. Thanks, WMS! I just looked at Census data, and what you said about commuting from Albuquerque does not appear to be true. Santa Fe is not affluent, and house prices there aren't way too much over Albuquerque. I'm inclined to turn it back, and have for now. Besides, Albuquerque is much bigger than Santa Fe. Again, I'm inclined to think that it would damage Santa Fe's economy. Let's just say I disagree - there's been a long, bitter dispute over newcomers driving the original inhabitants out because they move in, build a huge house, and drive property taxes up. I believe King could tell you a bit more about that... Perhaps we're viewing this through the prisms of our states...you're on the West Coast, where everything costs more (although pay is usually up as well)...just don't make a campaign stop in Albuquerque for a bit :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 06, 2006, 05:02:33 AM Let's just say I disagree - there's been a long, bitter dispute over newcomers driving the original inhabitants out because they move in, build a huge house, and drive property taxes up. I believe King could tell you a bit more about that... Perhaps we're viewing this through the prisms of our states...you're on the West Coast, where everything costs more (although pay is usually up as well)...just don't make a campaign stop in Albuquerque for a bit :P I see. I appreciate it and all, but again, I'd have to see convincing information that it would be more beneficial to move to Albuquerque. Anyway, in Albuquerque's honour, I'll hold off voting on that until you get a chance to find that information if it's important to you. Again, this is more symbolic than anything, but it is kind of fun to do this trivial local stuff, isn't it? ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 06, 2006, 05:03:34 AM It's been more than long enough, so please vote aye, nay, or abstain on the following items. Voting will remain open for a week.
Amendment to Abolish Chief Justice of the Pacific Region 1. Whereas, the position of Chief Justice of the Pacific Region position is functionally useless; 2. The position of Chief Justice of the Pacific Region is hereby abolished. 3. All powers held by the Chief Justice of the Pacific Region will be reverted to their statuses prior to the establishment of the position. Bestality Criminalisation Act 1. The abominable act of bestiality, which is defined as gross sexual imposition, sexual assault, or the committing of a deviant sexual act with an animal, shall be illegal throughout the Pacific Region. 2. Persons convicted of bestiality shall be fined a minimum of $500 or a maximum of $2,000 and/or sentenced to a minimum of six months in jail or a maximum of five years in jail. 3. This law should not be interpreted as banning sexual acts between members of the species homo sapiens. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 06, 2006, 05:04:22 AM Amendment to Abolish Chief Justice of the Pacific Region - Aye
Bestality Criminalisation Act - Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on March 06, 2006, 11:24:43 AM Let's just say I disagree - there's been a long, bitter dispute over newcomers driving the original inhabitants out because they move in, build a huge house, and drive property taxes up. I believe King could tell you a bit more about that... Perhaps we're viewing this through the prisms of our states...you're on the West Coast, where everything costs more (although pay is usually up as well)...just don't make a campaign stop in Albuquerque for a bit :P I see. I appreciate it and all, but again, I'd have to see convincing information that it would be more beneficial to move to Albuquerque. Anyway, in Albuquerque's honour, I'll hold off voting on that until you get a chance to find that information if it's important to you. Again, this is more symbolic than anything, but it is kind of fun to do this trivial local stuff, isn't it? ;) How about this: Albuquerque is much more accessible to the state's population than Santa Fe, due to being centrally located and on both of the major transportation arteries? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on March 06, 2006, 11:25:42 AM Amendment to Abolish Chief Justice of the Pacific Region
Aye Bestality Criminalisation Act Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 06, 2006, 04:17:23 PM Amendment to Abolish Chief Justice of the Pacific Region - Aye
Bestality Criminalisation Act - abstain Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on March 06, 2006, 05:07:27 PM Aye on both of these admendmets.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on March 06, 2006, 09:09:35 PM Aye on the first.
Second is more difficult. Beastiality is abhorrent but it sets a bad precedent. Still, it is so disgusting that I have to put aside those reservations and vote aye. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: George W. Hobbes on March 07, 2006, 12:24:45 AM Aye to both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 08, 2006, 09:58:36 PM Aye to both, I suppose.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: AkSaber on March 10, 2006, 05:22:53 AM Amendment to Abolish Chief Justice of the Pacific Region - Aye
Bestality Criminalisation Act - Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 17, 2006, 02:57:43 PM Both acts have passed.
Amendment to Abolish Chief Justice of the Pacific Region passes 8-0-0. Bestality Criminalisation Act passes 7-0-1. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 20, 2006, 11:31:08 PM Does anyone desire to introduce anything at this time?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 21, 2006, 03:10:39 AM OMFG LEGISLATION!!!11111
1. TEH PACIFEC SI TEH BEST REGIONE EVAR 2. TEH OTHAR REGIONES CAN GO JUMP IN A DITCH AND THEN POUR GASOLINE ON THE DITCH AND THEN LIGHT THE DITCH ON FIRE 3. go us Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on March 21, 2006, 03:37:27 AM OMFG LEGISLATION!!!11111 1. TEH PACIFEC SI TEH BEST REGIONE EVAR 2. TEH OTHAR REGIONES CAN GO JUMP IN A DITCH AND THEN POUR GASOLINE ON THE DITCH AND THEN LIGHT THE DITCH ON FIRE 3. go us I'd like to offer an amendment: -2b.) ESPECIALLY THE SOUTHEAST COS ITS A POOHOLE FULL OF POOHOLES Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jokerman on March 21, 2006, 10:43:53 PM OMFG LEGISLATION!!!11111 1. TEH PACIFEC SI TEH BEST REGIONE EVAR 2. TEH OTHAR REGIONES CAN GO JUMP IN A DITCH AND THEN POUR GASOLINE ON THE DITCH AND THEN LIGHT THE DITCH ON FIRE 3. go us I'd like to offer an amendment: -2b.) ESPECIALLY THE SOUTHEAST COS ITS A POOHOLE FULL OF POOHOLES Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 21, 2006, 11:02:38 PM The honourable Senator's legislation will be open to a one-week debating period before we pass it. The honourable Austro-Atlasian's amendment will also be considered, despite his thoroughly annoying accent.
I'd like to offer an amendment: -2b.) ESPECIALLY THE SOUTHEAST COS ITS A POOHOLE FULL OF POOHOLES I wouldn't do that if I were you. We have Microsoft employees on our side, and they have some very sharp pencils. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jokerman on March 21, 2006, 11:06:14 PM I'd like to offer an amendment: -2b.) ESPECIALLY THE SOUTHEAST COS ITS A POOHOLE FULL OF POOHOLES I wouldn't do that if I were you. We have Microsoft employees on our side, and they have some very sharp pencils. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 22, 2006, 01:18:34 AM I'd like to offer an amendment: -2b.) ESPECIALLY THE SOUTHEAST COS ITS A POOHOLE FULL OF POOHOLES I wouldn't do that if I were you. We have Microsoft employees on our side, and they have some very sharp pencils. That stuff isn't even sold here! Thwarted! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 22, 2006, 01:43:53 AM Naming of the Southeast Initiative
1. The Southeast Region is hereby known in the Pacific as "the Bad Place". 2. All references to the Southeast Region in the past, present, or future, will be altered such that the text "the Southeast Region" is replaced with "the Bad Place". 3. All elected officials in the Pacific are required to refer to the Southeast Region as "the Bad Place". 4. The Pacific is still the best region ever and no one should step to us because we are so awesome. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 22, 2006, 01:48:31 AM One final piece of legislation to go up to the debate:
For the Children Act 1. All residents of the Southeast will be recognised by the Pacific Regional Government as "Bubba." 2. In the unlikely event that the Southeast ever gets a female resident, she will be referred to as "Bubba Phyllis." 3. The Pacific Regional Government henceforth considers the Southeastern Region to be an island, surrounded by water on all four sides. 4. June 3rd, previously Jefferson Davis Day, will now be recognised as Day of Pale White Men with High Cheekbones. 5. The current Southeastern Governor, and all subsequent Southeastern Governors, will be declared the State Tree of all states in the Pacific Region. Southeastern Lt. Governors will be declared the State Squaredance. 6. The penalty for breaching of this act is social ostracisation and ten minutes of freakishly high-speed community service. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 22, 2006, 02:02:57 AM The Southeast is t3h 5ux0r Initiative
WHEREAS, the Southeast probably has stuff like lice and E. Coli and other bad stuff that we don't want in our food; WHEREAS, Southeasterners habitually partake in incest and are like retarded and stuff; WHEREAS, the stately nature of the Pacific is thus dearly offended by the Southeast Region's modus operandi; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pacific Region that- 1. The Southeast is the worst region ever and really should take a bath and implement water chlorination or something. 2. All Southeasterners are communists. 3. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. 4. The Southeast is not allowed to retaliate for anything because the Pacific is rubber and the Southeast is glue and whatever they do bounces off of us and sticks to them. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jokerman on March 22, 2006, 12:17:30 PM 3. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on March 22, 2006, 12:30:21 PM 3. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jokerman on March 22, 2006, 12:32:35 PM Haha, Pacificans. As you can see our covert agent, under the cover of Senator WMS has arived.
Now he will set off a nuclear explosion destroying the entire Pacific Region. (Except populist areas, like Fresno). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on March 22, 2006, 12:33:50 PM Haha, Pacificans. As you can see our covert agent, under the cover of Senator WMS has arived. Now he will set off a nuclear explosion destroying the entire Pacific Region. (Except populist areas, like Fresno). ;D This thread has become quite amusing. :) To cool everyone off, I'll send everyone a jar of habaneros. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 22, 2006, 02:36:03 PM 3. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. No. We're just disavowing all knowledge of there ever being a border. It no longer exists. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on March 22, 2006, 03:17:24 PM 3. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. No. We're just disavowing all knowledge of there ever being a border. It no longer exists. So the gaping vacuum just past NM's borders is causing all this damn wind here, eh? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 22, 2006, 04:42:30 PM 3. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. No. We're just disavowing all knowledge of there ever being a border. It no longer exists. So the gaping vacuum just past NM's borders is causing all this damn wind here, eh? Obviously. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on March 22, 2006, 04:53:59 PM 3. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. No. We're just disavowing all knowledge of there ever being a border. It no longer exists. So the gaping vacuum just past NM's borders is causing all this damn wind here, eh? Obviously. Damnit. >_< Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 22, 2006, 04:59:20 PM 3. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. No. We're just disavowing all knowledge of there ever being a border. It no longer exists. So the gaping vacuum just past NM's borders is causing all this damn wind here, eh? Obviously. Damnit. >_< It's the Southeast's fault; we had to put something there. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on March 22, 2006, 05:12:11 PM 3. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. No. We're just disavowing all knowledge of there ever being a border. It no longer exists. So the gaping vacuum just past NM's borders is causing all this damn wind here, eh? Obviously. Damnit. >_< It's the Southeast's fault; we had to put something there. Ah, I see ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jokerman on March 22, 2006, 06:31:15 PM Of course in a millitary conflict, an army of southrons led by General Cosmo Kramer would trounce an army of pacificans led by General Gabu.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 22, 2006, 08:18:20 PM Of course in a millitary conflict, an army of southrons led by General Cosmo Kramer would trounce an army of pacificans led by General Gabu. If you wanted to invade the Pacific, then you would have to go through some other region, because no border between the Pacific and the Southeast exists, you see. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jokerman on March 22, 2006, 09:42:54 PM Of course in a millitary conflict, an army of southrons led by General Cosmo Kramer would trounce an army of pacificans led by General Gabu. If you wanted to invade the Pacific, then you would have to go through some other region, because no border between the Pacific and the Southeast exists, you see. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 22, 2006, 09:46:27 PM Of course in a millitary conflict, an army of southrons led by General Cosmo Kramer would trounce an army of pacificans led by General Gabu. If you wanted to invade the Pacific, then you would have to go through some other region, because no border between the Pacific and the Southeast exists, you see. No, I'm sorry, but this border you speak of is imaginary. Have you considered consulting a psychologist for this delusion? It can't be good for your personal life. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Јas on March 23, 2006, 07:59:17 AM Of course in a millitary conflict, an army of southrons led by General Cosmo Kramer would trounce an army of pacificans led by General Gabu. If you wanted to invade the Pacific, then you would have to go through some other region, because no border between the Pacific and the Southeast exists, you see. *consults military advisers on Oklahoma's defensive preparedness* Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jokerman on March 23, 2006, 10:34:18 AM Of course in a millitary conflict, an army of southrons led by General Cosmo Kramer would trounce an army of pacificans led by General Gabu. If you wanted to invade the Pacific, then you would have to go through some other region, because no border between the Pacific and the Southeast exists, you see. *consults military advisers on Oklahoma's defensive preparedness* Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on March 23, 2006, 02:32:54 PM Of course in a millitary conflict, an army of southrons led by General Cosmo Kramer would trounce an army of pacificans led by General Gabu. If you wanted to invade the Pacific, then you would have to go through some other region, because no border between the Pacific and the Southeast exists, you see. *consults military advisers on Oklahoma's defensive preparedness* And then your troops would, apparently, fall into the infinite vacuum that now exists between the Pacific and the Southeast. ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 23, 2006, 03:23:19 PM If anyone chooses to introduce any debate onto the condensed form of the bill, please do so. Otherwise, voting will begin.
For the Children Act of 2006 1. All residents of the Southeast will be recognised by the Pacific Regional Government as "Bubba." 2. In the unlikely event that the Southeast ever gets a female resident, she will be referred to as "Bubba Phyllis." 3. The Pacific Regional Government henceforth considers the Southeastern Region to be an island, surrounded by water on all four sides. 4. June 3rd, previously Jefferson Davis Day, will now be recognised as Day of Pale White Men with High Cheekbones. 5. The current Southeastern Governor, and all subsequent Southeastern Governors, will be declared the State Tree of all states in the Pacific Region. Southeastern Lt. Governors will be declared the State Squaredance. 6. The penalty for breaching of this act is social ostracisation and ten minutes of freakishly high-speed community service. 7. The Southeast is the worst region ever and really should take a bath and implement water chlorination or something. 8. All Southeasterners are communists. 9. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. 10. The Southeast is not allowed to retaliate for anything because the Pacific is rubber and the Southeast is glue and whatever they do bounces off of us and sticks to them. 11. The Pacific Region is officially declared the best region ever. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 23, 2006, 05:14:50 PM Of course in a millitary conflict, an army of southrons led by General Cosmo Kramer would trounce an army of pacificans led by General Gabu. If you wanted to invade the Pacific, then you would have to go through some other region, because no border between the Pacific and the Southeast exists, you see. *consults military advisers on Oklahoma's defensive preparedness* And then your troops would, apparently, fall into the infinite vacuum that now exists between the Pacific and the Southeast. ;D Obviously. Cosmo Kramer is not very good at comprehending the "big picture" and is also not very good at staying up with the times, given that he still persists in thinking that a border exists between the Southeast and Pacific, when in fact there quite clearly is none. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on March 24, 2006, 09:47:32 AM If anyone chooses to introduce any debate onto the condensed form of the bill, please do so. Otherwise, voting will begin. For the Children Act of 2006 1. All residents of the Southeast will be recognised by the Pacific Regional Government as "Bubba." 2. In the unlikely event that the Southeast ever gets a female resident, she will be referred to as "Bubba Phyllis." 3. The Pacific Regional Government henceforth considers the Southeastern Region to be an island, surrounded by water on all four sides. 4. June 3rd, previously Jefferson Davis Day, will now be recognised as Day of Pale White Men with High Cheekbones. 5. The current Southeastern Governor, and all subsequent Southeastern Governors, will be declared the State Tree of all states in the Pacific Region. Southeastern Lt. Governors will be declared the State Squaredance. 6. The penalty for breaching of this act is social ostracisation and ten minutes of freakishly high-speed community service. 7. The Southeast is the worst region ever and really should take a bath and implement water chlorination or something. 8. All Southeasterners are communists. 9. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. 10. The Southeast is not allowed to retaliate for anything because the Pacific is rubber and the Southeast is glue and whatever they do bounces off of us and sticks to them. 11. The Pacific Region is officially declared the best region ever. You forgot the poohole bit. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on March 24, 2006, 09:48:07 AM 3. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. No. We're just disavowing all knowledge of there ever being a border. It no longer exists. So the gaping vacuum just past NM's borders is causing all this damn wind here, eh? That or the Chilli. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 24, 2006, 03:13:47 PM If no one has any additional matters to bring up, I will be bringing this act to a vote.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on March 24, 2006, 05:29:12 PM 3. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. No. We're just disavowing all knowledge of there ever being a border. It no longer exists. So the gaping vacuum just past NM's borders is causing all this damn wind here, eh? That or the Chilli. *drumroll* The beans do that, not the Chile. ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 25, 2006, 03:18:22 AM Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.
For the Children Act of 2006 1. All residents of the Southeast will be recognised by the Pacific Regional Government as "Bubba." 2. In the unlikely event that the Southeast ever gets a female resident, she will be referred to as "Bubba Phyllis." 3. The Pacific Regional Government henceforth considers the Southeastern Region to be an island, surrounded by water on all four sides. 4. June 3rd, previously Jefferson Davis Day, will now be recognised as Day of Pale White Men with High Cheekbones. 5. The current Southeastern Governor, and all subsequent Southeastern Governors, will be declared the State Tree of all states in the Pacific Region. Southeastern Lt. Governors will be declared the State Squaredance. 6. The penalty for breaching of this act is social ostracisation and ten minutes of freakishly high-speed community service. 7. The Southeast is the worst region ever and really should take a bath and implement water chlorination or something. 8. All Southeasterners are communists. 9. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. 10. The Southeast is not allowed to retaliate for anything because the Pacific is rubber and the Southeast is glue and whatever they do bounces off of us and sticks to them. 11. The Pacific Region is officially declared the best region ever. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 25, 2006, 03:19:28 AM AYE for great justice!!111
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 25, 2006, 03:57:00 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 26, 2006, 02:37:25 PM Aye!
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jokerman on March 26, 2006, 03:18:14 PM If this mockery of a bill passes I will be forced to retaliate.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on March 27, 2006, 02:10:12 AM Still no poohole bit :mad:
Aye, anyway. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on March 27, 2006, 04:02:24 AM If this mockery of a bill passes I will be forced to retaliate. I hope you don't order your troops to march into the infinite vacuum, because that would just not be good leadership. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on March 27, 2006, 03:23:54 PM If this mockery of a bill passes I will be forced to retaliate. I hope you don't order your troops to march into the infinite vacuum, because that would just not be good leadership. Aye just because I want to see what Preston will do next, not because I have anything against the Southeast ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 28, 2006, 06:32:32 PM Voting will close on April 1st.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on March 31, 2006, 12:17:54 PM Voting will close on April 1st. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on April 02, 2006, 05:41:25 PM The For the Children Act of 2006 has passed 5-0.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on April 02, 2006, 06:42:58 PM The For the Children Act of 2006 has passed 5-0. This is a truly great day for Atlasians everywhere. Except for those in the Bad Place. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Peter on May 17, 2006, 06:59:36 AM I seek to introduce the following bill before the Pacific legislature. It is an effective consolidation of similar bills that I proposed in the Mideast. For a graphical representation of the provisions of section 3, see here (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Image:Sexcrimechart.png). Red is first degree stat. rape, Orange is second degree; Yellow is carnal sexual conduct; Green is legal.
Pacific Pornography and Sex Crime Bill Section 1: Right to pornography 1. All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to buy, possess and view pornography depicting only consenting persons of 18 years of age or older. Section 2: Right to engage in sexual relations 1. All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts, including sodomy, with other persons of 16 years of age or older. 2. All those persons between the ages of 14 years old and 16 years old not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to consent to engage in oral sex or mutual masturbation with persons between the ages of 14 years old and 18 years old. 3. All those Laws criminalising solitary masturbation are repealed. 4. All those laws outlawing particular sexual conducts based on the number of persons engaged in the conduct are hereby repealed. 5. All those laws outlawing particular sexual conducts based on the sex, sexuality, marital status, race, religion, ancestry or nationality of those engaged in the conduct are hereby repealed. Section 3: Definition of sex crimes 1. Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 14 years by a person over the age of 21 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree. 2. Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 12 years by a person over the age of 18 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree. 3. Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 10 years by a person over the age of 16 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree. 4. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 years by a person over the age of 21 years is defined as statutory rape of the second degree. 5. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 10 and 12 years by a person between the ages of 16 and 18 years is defined as statutory rape of the second degree. 6. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 12 and 14 years by a person between the ages of 18 and 21 is defined as statutory rape of the second degree. 7. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 years by a person between the ages of 18 and 21 is defined as carnal sexual conduct. 8. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 12 and 14 years by a person between the ages of 16 and 18 is defined as carnal sexual conduct. 9. Any sexual conduct, except oral sex and mutual masturbation, with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 by a person between the ages of 16 and 18 is defined as carnal sexual conduct. 10. The clauses in this Section shall only apply to circumstances where all parties involved in the sexual conduct were willing, even though they are unable under the Law to give informed, legal consent. Section 4: Punishment for sex crimes 1. Those guilty of Carnal Sexual Conduct may be punished by up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $1000. If released, a person guilty of this crime shall not be placed on the Sex Offenders Register. 2. Those guilty of Statutory Rape of the Second Degree may be punished by up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $7500. If released a person guilty of this crime shall be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for up to twenty years. 3. Those guilty of Statutory Rape of the First Degree may be punished by up to life in prison and an unlimited fine. If released, a person guilty of this crime shall be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life Section 5: Construction 1. Nothing in Sections 3 and 4 shall be construed to amend in anyway the definitions of, or punishments for, rape where consent by one of the parties involved is not given. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jerusalemcar5 on May 17, 2006, 02:31:08 PM If it may please the legislature, I'd like to say that passage of such a bill would be disgustingly prejudicial based on age, oppressive, and undemocratic. I'd just like to point out a couple of many ridiculous clauses. According to Section 3 Clause 9 and Section 4 Clause 1 a 16 yr old who has sex with a 15 yr old can get 6 months in prison. 6 months! For having sex! Section 3 Clause 8 a 16 yr old who has oral sex or touches sexually a 14 yr old, 6 months imprisonment also. Other clauses, though not quite as outlandish as the ones mentioned, are too restricitve and base this restriction based on biased stereoptyping about age. I strongly urge all true Atlasiana that support democracy to reject this bill in its entirety. Thank you.
I seek to introduce the following bill before the Pacific legislature. It is an effective consolidation of similar bills that I proposed in the Mideast. For a graphical representation of the provisions of section 3, see here (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Image:Sexcrimechart.png). Red is first degree stat. rape, Orange is second degree; Yellow is carnal sexual conduct; Green is legal. Pacific Pornography and Sex Crime Bill Section 1: Right to pornography 1. All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to buy, possess and view pornography depicting only consenting persons of 18 years of age or older. Section 2: Right to engage in sexual relations 1. All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts, including sodomy, with other persons of 16 years of age or older. 2. All those persons between the ages of 14 years old and 16 years old not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to consent to engage in oral sex or mutual masturbation with persons between the ages of 14 years old and 18 years old. 3. All those Laws criminalising solitary masturbation are repealed. 4. All those laws outlawing particular sexual conducts based on the number of persons engaged in the conduct are hereby repealed. 5. All those laws outlawing particular sexual conducts based on the sex, sexuality, marital status, race, religion, ancestry or nationality of those engaged in the conduct are hereby repealed. Section 3: Definition of sex crimes 1. Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 14 years by a person over the age of 21 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree. 2. Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 12 years by a person over the age of 18 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree. 3. Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 10 years by a person over the age of 16 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree. 4. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 years by a person over the age of 21 years is defined as statutory rape of the second degree. 5. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 10 and 12 years by a person between the ages of 16 and 18 years is defined as statutory rape of the second degree. 6. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 12 and 14 years by a person between the ages of 18 and 21 is defined as statutory rape of the second degree. 7. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 years by a person between the ages of 18 and 21 is defined as carnal sexual conduct. 8. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 12 and 14 years by a person between the ages of 16 and 18 is defined as carnal sexual conduct. 9. Any sexual conduct, except oral sex and mutual masturbation, with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 by a person between the ages of 16 and 18 is defined as carnal sexual conduct. 10. The clauses in this Section shall only apply to circumstances where all parties involved in the sexual conduct were willing, even though they are unable under the Law to give informed, legal consent. Section 4: Punishment for sex crimes 1. Those guilty of Carnal Sexual Conduct may be punished by up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $1000. If released, a person guilty of this crime shall not be placed on the Sex Offenders Register. 2. Those guilty of Statutory Rape of the Second Degree may be punished by up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $7500. If released a person guilty of this crime shall be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for up to twenty years. 3. Those guilty of Statutory Rape of the First Degree may be punished by up to life in prison and an unlimited fine. If released, a person guilty of this crime shall be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life Section 5: Construction 1. Nothing in Sections 3 and 4 shall be construed to amend in anyway the definitions of, or punishments for, rape where consent by one of the parties involved is not given. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 17, 2006, 04:15:54 PM Wait, so are you arguing against an age of consent altogether?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jerusalemcar5 on May 17, 2006, 05:11:05 PM Wait, so are you arguing against an age of consent altogether? Yes, though the age of consent is confusing in this bill since it depends on which sexual act you are committing. How am I too immature to consent to sex with a 25 yr old (I'm 15)? That just makes no sense. You cannot group people by age, race, sex, religion, or other meaningless factors. Being a teenager doesn't mean you can't maturely consider your actions and neither does being a women or being black. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on May 17, 2006, 05:17:12 PM And so Peter Bell finds something entertaining to do. ;) *pops popcorn and settles back to read the debate*
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 17, 2006, 08:39:15 PM How am I too immature to consent to sex with a 25 yr old (I'm 15)? That just makes no sense. You cannot group people by age, race, sex, religion, or other meaningless factors. Being a teenager doesn't mean you can't maturely consider your actions and neither does being a women or being black. This is a bit strange cos I remember you arguing that history months based on race are not inherently discriminatory. Honestly, your argument wouldn't hold up anywhere. It is pretty much universally agreed that pedophilia is unacceptable; that's why we have an age of consent. This proposed law actually lowers the age of consent in many cases, as real-life laws that the Pacific are based on are more strict than Peter's proposal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jerusalemcar5 on May 17, 2006, 10:22:53 PM How am I too immature to consent to sex with a 25 yr old (I'm 15)? That just makes no sense. You cannot group people by age, race, sex, religion, or other meaningless factors. Being a teenager doesn't mean you can't maturely consider your actions and neither does being a women or being black. This is a bit strange cos I remember you arguing that history months based on race are not inherently discriminatory. Honestly, your argument wouldn't hold up anywhere. It is pretty much universally agreed that pedophilia is unacceptable; that's why we have an age of consent. This proposed law actually lowers the age of consent in many cases, as real-life laws that the Pacific are based on are more strict than Peter's proposal. They are stricter usually for intercourse, not other sexual acts. And honoring a group of people based in their accomplishments and aid to society is different from imprisoning them based on their group. One is positive and kind, the other is negative and condesending. I support the limit for non-teenagers, but teenagers can make informed decisions. You cannot say that an 18 yr old having sex witha 55 yr old is OK then turn around and say a 16 yr old having sex witha 22 yr old isn't. It's discrimination, plai and simple. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Peter on May 18, 2006, 02:00:20 AM As I understand it, the present age of consent across the Pacific Region is 18 (as a consequence of the adoption of Arizona's Statutory Code across the Region).
Under this, sex with anybody between 15 and 18 by an adult is punishable as a class 6 felony, or one year in prison. This does relax the restrictions in what I believe is a sensible manner. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on May 18, 2006, 09:12:44 AM Pete, wtf is up with your avatar?
Instead of D-IN, I see this: () Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Peter on May 18, 2006, 09:32:20 AM I have been given omnipotence by the Gods of the internet.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jerusalemcar5 on May 18, 2006, 09:57:19 AM As I understand it, the present age of consent across the Pacific Region is 18 (as a consequence of the adoption of Arizona's Statutory Code across the Region). Under this, sex with anybody between 15 and 18 by an adult is punishable as a class 6 felony, or one year in prison. This does relax the restrictions in what I believe is a sensible manner. Again, I do believe this relaxes the horrific sex regulations, but it exapnds criminality to sexual contacts which I find unacceptable. Besides, it does not relax the statutory penalties enough. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Peter on May 18, 2006, 10:07:42 AM It in no way "exapnds criminality" (sic) - you are simply making this up. Everything that would be illegal under this bill is already illegal in one shape or form.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jerusalemcar5 on May 18, 2006, 11:07:46 AM It in no way "exapnds criminality" (sic) - you are simply making this up. Everything that would be illegal under this bill is already illegal in one shape or form. Oh please. Show me where it is illegal for a 16 yr old to consenually touch a 14 yr old in their "private areas". Regardless of current statute, this is ridiculously oppresive. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Peter on May 18, 2006, 11:16:26 AM Title 13, Chapter 1405 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01405.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) and Chapter 1410 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01410.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) of the Arizona Revised Statutes which have been adopted as the Laws of the entire Pacific Region.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jerusalemcar5 on May 18, 2006, 03:45:42 PM Title 13, Chapter 1405 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01405.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) and Chapter 1410 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01410.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) of the Arizona Revised Statutes which have been adopted as the Laws of the entire Pacific Region. Section 3 Clause 7 would expand the sexual conduct regulations to 15 and 16 yr olds. You would also increase the penalties. You would raise statutory rape from a class 2 felony to a class 1 by allowing life imprisonment. A first time class 2 offense currently warrants 5 yrs. Some rules are laxed, some toughened, but all in all this law is just as disgusting as the Arizona statutes. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on May 22, 2006, 01:29:08 PM The Pacific Pornography and Sex Crime Bill will now come to a vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.
Pacific Pornography and Sex Crime Bill Section 1: Right to pornography 1. All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to buy, possess and view pornography depicting only consenting persons of 18 years of age or older. Section 2: Right to engage in sexual relations 1. All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts, including sodomy, with other persons of 16 years of age or older. 2. All those persons between the ages of 14 years old and 16 years old not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to consent to engage in oral sex or mutual masturbation with persons between the ages of 14 years old and 18 years old. 3. All those Laws criminalising solitary masturbation are repealed. 4. All those laws outlawing particular sexual conducts based on the number of persons engaged in the conduct are hereby repealed. 5. All those laws outlawing particular sexual conducts based on the sex, sexuality, marital status, race, religion, ancestry or nationality of those engaged in the conduct are hereby repealed. Section 3: Definition of sex crimes 1. Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 14 years by a person over the age of 21 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree. 2. Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 12 years by a person over the age of 18 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree. 3. Any sexual conduct with a person under the age of 10 years by a person over the age of 16 years is defined as statutory rape of the first degree. 4. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 years by a person over the age of 21 years is defined as statutory rape of the second degree. 5. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 10 and 12 years by a person between the ages of 16 and 18 years is defined as statutory rape of the second degree. 6. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 12 and 14 years by a person between the ages of 18 and 21 is defined as statutory rape of the second degree. 7. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 years by a person between the ages of 18 and 21 is defined as carnal sexual conduct. 8. Any sexual conduct with a person between the ages of 12 and 14 years by a person between the ages of 16 and 18 is defined as carnal sexual conduct. 9. Any sexual conduct, except oral sex and mutual masturbation, with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 by a person between the ages of 16 and 18 is defined as carnal sexual conduct. 10. The clauses in this Section shall only apply to circumstances where all parties involved in the sexual conduct were willing, even though they are unable under the Law to give informed, legal consent. Section 4: Punishment for sex crimes 1. Those guilty of Carnal Sexual Conduct may be punished by up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $1000. If released, a person guilty of this crime shall not be placed on the Sex Offenders Register. 2. Those guilty of Statutory Rape of the Second Degree may be punished by up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $7500. If released a person guilty of this crime shall be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for up to twenty years. 3. Those guilty of Statutory Rape of the First Degree may be punished by up to life in prison and an unlimited fine. If released, a person guilty of this crime shall be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life Section 5: Construction 1. Nothing in Sections 3 and 4 shall be construed to amend in anyway the definitions of, or punishments for, rape where consent by one of the parties involved is not given. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Peter on May 23, 2006, 07:38:41 AM aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on May 23, 2006, 11:25:03 AM I haven't heard anything to indicate this is a bad set of laws, so Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on May 23, 2006, 01:20:49 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on May 23, 2006, 03:46:52 PM There are a few bits that I don't quite like, but it's certainly an improvement over what we currently have.
Aye. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 02, 2006, 11:54:02 PM Here are two proposals I have for amendments to the Constitution.
Whereas the Pacific should follow the lead of the rest of the nation by re-adjusting the time that its elections begin. Therefore elections shall begin at 9:00 PM Pacific Standard time on the penultimate Thursday in April and August and on the second Thursday in December and not midnight on Fridays by changing these details in Article 1: Section 2. Whereas the four consecutive term-limit has not only proven itself unnecessary, it limits democracy and the voice of the people. Therefore, there shall be no term limits for Governor and Lt. Governor and Article 1: Section 1 shall be stricken from the Second Pacific Constitution. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on June 06, 2006, 11:55:24 AM Yeah, let's bring this to the ballot.
X WMS Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on June 08, 2006, 07:46:35 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 08, 2006, 06:12:34 PM Aye for both
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on June 16, 2006, 11:44:58 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on June 18, 2006, 01:23:11 AM Aye on both
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on June 26, 2006, 07:54:32 PM Both amendments have (obviously) been passed.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 30, 2006, 03:27:03 AM Amendment to embrace Pacifican culture
Whereas, the "Governor" of the Pacific simply presides over the legislature. Whereas, if anything, this makes him more of a Prime Minister. But, Prime Minister is a term more appropriate for the United Kingdom or nations more closely tied to it politically than the United States. Whereas, Muckamuck is a term from Chinook Jargon (which was a trade language used in the Western United States in the 19th century) that meant leader. Whereas, High Muckamuck was a very important person. Whereas, Muckamuck has become a term nationwide to refer to politicians. Whereas, the Pacific government needs to be more in touch with the history and culture of the Pacific Region. Therefore, the Governor of the Pacific shall now be known as High Muckamuck of the Pacific. The Lt. Governor shall now be known as the Lt. Muckamuck. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on June 30, 2006, 03:33:00 AM As with all non-controversial issues, this is going straight to voting.
X Alcon Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 30, 2006, 03:33:54 AM I vote aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on June 30, 2006, 03:35:06 AM Aye :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Peter on June 30, 2006, 05:50:06 AM Negatory.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on June 30, 2006, 12:01:24 PM Abstain, as I don't really care one way or the other. ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Bdub on July 04, 2006, 08:26:45 PM Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on July 06, 2006, 07:19:55 PM The item fails.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on July 06, 2006, 08:21:49 PM I am going to wait to sign this, because I have this to say.
My aunt works for the state of Washington in the very department that gets to enforce the smoking ban. She initially voted for it, but has since discovered that it appears to be flawed and unenforable due to a number of problematic phrases in its text. I can get more specific if you like, but the gist of the matter is that there are too many unclear passages to get my support. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on July 18, 2006, 08:46:51 PM Also why don't we up the fine for smoking, $100 seems to little how about $300-500 or so.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on August 14, 2006, 10:08:25 AM WildCard, still interest on a vote on this?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2006, 11:13:53 PM We're having a special election for Lt. Governor.
CANDIDATES: Alcon VOTE OR DIE. I VOTE FOR ALCON. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Bdub on September 14, 2006, 07:19:14 AM Alcon
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on September 14, 2006, 04:38:31 PM Alcon.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Kevin on September 16, 2006, 06:02:42 PM Alcon
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 19, 2006, 05:13:19 PM Alcon wins 5-0
he'll fill out the rest of the current term of NOTA since nobody ran in August. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 26, 2006, 10:23:49 PM I intend on running for Governor in the upcoming December elections.
Lt. Governor will almost certainly be open if anyone is interested. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 17, 2006, 12:51:11 AM Capital Punishment Abolition Act
1. All forms of capital punishment are hereby outlawed. 2. Persons sentenced to death within the Pacific Region are commuted to life imprisonment. 3. The Pacific Region shall not extradite any person to another region without assurance that he will not be executed. (Current status of capital punishment is indefinite moratorium) Reproductive Freedom Act 1. The Pacific Region shall not fund any organization that promotes information which is intentionally false in regards to the psychological and mental health of engaging in sexual relations outside of or before marriage or the effectiveness of condoms and oral contraceptives. 2. Federally approved contraception shall not be denied to any person on the basis of age, sex, or sexual orientation. 3. Any laws criminalizing the use of emergency contraception (the so-called "morning-after pill") are repealed. 4. Any laws criminalizing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy are repealed. 5. Any laws restricting a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy on the basis of age or marital status are repealed. 6. All hospitals will be required to dispense emergency contraception to victims of rape regardless of the religious affiliation of the hospital or medical care provider. Marijuana Legalization Act 1. The production, possession, sale, and consumption of marijuana, and of the plant Cannabis sativa, shall be lawful for all individuals (except minors). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 17, 2006, 12:56:32 AM Capital Punishment Abolition Act 1. All forms of capital punishment are hereby outlawed. 2. Persons sentenced to death within the Pacific Region are commuted to life imprisonment. 3. The Pacific Region shall not extradite any person to another region without assurance that he will not be executed. (Current status of capital punishment is indefinite moratorium) Reproductive Freedom Act 1. The Pacific Region shall not fund any organization that promotes information which is intentionally false in regards to the psychological and mental health of engaging in sexual relations outside of or before marriage or the effectiveness of condoms and oral contraceptives. 2. Federally approved contraception shall not be denied to any person on the basis of age, sex, or sexual orientation. 3. Any laws criminalizing the use of emergency contraception (the so-called "morning-after pill") are repealed. 4. Any laws criminalizing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy are repealed. 5. Any laws restricting a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy on the basis of age or marital status are repealed. 6. All hospitals will be required to dispense emergency contraception to victims of rape regardless of the religious affiliation of the hospital or medical care provider. Marijuana Legalization Act 1. The production, possession, sale, and consumption of marijuana, and of the plant Cannabis sativa, shall be lawful for all individuals (except minors). I open all for voting. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 17, 2006, 01:00:00 AM Capital Punishment Abolition Act: Aye
Reproductive Freedom Act: Aye Marijuana Legalization Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: phk on December 17, 2006, 01:09:28 AM Capital Punishment Abolition Act: Aye
Reproductive Freedom Act: Aye Marijuana Legalization Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 17, 2006, 02:40:28 AM Capital Punishment Abolition Act: Aye
Reproductive Freedom Act: Abstain Marijuana Legalization Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Rob on December 17, 2006, 05:31:23 AM Capital Punishment Abolition Act: Aye
Reproductive Freedom Act: Aye Marijuana Legalization Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Bdub on December 17, 2006, 08:05:30 AM Capital Punishment Abolition Act: Nay Reproductive Freedom Act: Aye Marijuana Legalization Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: © tweed on December 17, 2006, 09:54:08 AM I'm pretty sure marijuana is already legal.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 17, 2006, 04:22:05 PM I'm pretty sure marijuana is already legal. The Pacific carries over Arizona's laws on such matters. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: © tweed on December 17, 2006, 04:29:23 PM I'm pretty sure marijuana is already legal. The Pacific carries over Arizona's laws on such matters. But marijuana is legal on the federal level. https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Marijuana_Legalization_and_Taxation_Act EDIT: but that text of that seems to allow regions to decide for themselves. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 17, 2006, 04:30:29 PM I'm pretty sure marijuana is already legal. The Pacific carries over Arizona's laws on such matters. But marijuana is legal on the federal level. https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Marijuana_Legalization_and_Taxation_Act Yeah, that serves as a backup for the regions when there's no law in place. But when we started out marijuana was illegal by default in all of the regions. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on December 17, 2006, 05:41:35 PM Capital Punishment Abolition Act: Aye
Reproductive Freedom Act: Aye Marijuana Legalization Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 17, 2006, 10:23:24 PM Capital Punishment Abolition Act: Aye
Reproductive Freedom Act: Nay Marijuana Legalization Act: Aye I do not support the fourth section of the Reproductive Freedom Act, and cannot support the sixth section. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on December 19, 2006, 02:24:34 PM Capital Punishment Abolition Act: Aye
Reproductive Freedom Act: Nay Marijuana Legalization Act: Aye I agree with Hugh. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 25, 2006, 07:09:56 PM The Capital Punishment Abolition Act has passed 7-1.
X Governor Jesus Reproductive Freedom Act has passed 5-2. X Governor Jesus Marijuana Legalization Act has passed 8-0. X Governor Jesus All three acts have been passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on December 28, 2006, 11:08:06 PM Republican Party Illegalisation Act
1. The Republican Party is hereby illegalised in the Pacific Region. 2. Association with the Republican Party is punishable by forced membership in the Jesus Christ Party and/or lifelong exile from the Pacific Region. Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act 1. All laws that restrict a patient's right to consensual physician-assisted suicide are hereby repealed. 2. This Act does not extend to involuntary euthanasia. Alcohol Freedom Act 1. The Pacific Region shall have no official minimum drinking age. Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act 1. Religion is hereby abolished in the Pacific Region. 2. Anyone attempting to build a church or other religious institution will be fined $5,000,000 and then whipped 500 times in Singapore. The last proposal isn't mine, so don't whine to me about it. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2006, 11:22:35 PM I open voting on the following. Voting ends in a week.
Republican Party Illegalisation Act 1. The Republican Party is hereby illegalised in the Pacific Region. 2. Association with the Republican Party is punishable by forced membership in the Jesus Christ Party and/or lifelong exile from the Pacific Region. Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act 1. All laws that restrict a patient's right to consensual physician-assisted suicide are hereby repealed. 2. This Act does not extend to involuntary euthanasia. Alcohol Freedom Act 1. The Pacific Region shall have no official minimum drinking age. Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act 1. Religion is hereby abolished in the Pacific Region. 2. Anyone attempting to build a church or other religious institution will be fined $5,000,000 and then whipped 500 times in Singapore. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on December 28, 2006, 11:24:10 PM Republican Party Illegalisation Act: Aye.
Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act: Aye. Alcohol Freedom Act: Aye. Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act: Aye. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: phk on December 28, 2006, 11:36:11 PM Republican Party Illegalisation Act: Aye.
Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act: Aye. Alcohol Freedom Act: Aye. Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act: Aye. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on December 29, 2006, 08:21:06 AM Republican Party Illegalisation Act: Nay
Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act: Abstain Alcohol Freedom Act: Nay Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act: Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on December 29, 2006, 02:22:00 PM Republican Party Illegalisation Act Nay
Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act Nay Alcohol Freedom Act Nay Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on December 29, 2006, 02:26:46 PM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution
Pursuant to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the Pacific Region hereby consents to the transfer of the state of New Mexico from the Pacific region to the Midwest region. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 29, 2006, 03:59:18 PM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution Pursuant to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the Pacific Region hereby consents to the transfer of the state of New Mexico from the Pacific region to the Midwest region. For free? Seriously? We traded Montana specifically to get New Mexico. No way I'm going to support this unless we at LEAST get Montana back, and preferably another state with at least one voter. Then I will consider it. I am not voting for this version. New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on December 29, 2006, 05:18:04 PM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution Pursuant to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the Pacific Region hereby consents to the transfer of the state of New Mexico from the Pacific region to the Midwest region. For free? Seriously? We traded Montana specifically to get New Mexico. No way I'm going to support this unless we at LEAST get Montana back, and preferably another state with at least one voter. Then I will consider it. I am not voting for this version. New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution Nay I was following the Senate's lead. You might have to ask the Midwest. That said, I'll tell you right now if the current set of Acts pass in the Pacific there's going to be trouble in NM. >:( The fact that they violate Article VI is SO going to trigger state nullification. :P Happy New Year, and Down With Tyranny! ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 29, 2006, 06:23:57 PM Republican Party Illegalisation Act: Nay
Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act: Aye Alcohol Freedom Act: Aye Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act: Nay New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Nay I am very concerned with the "Nay" votes on the reasonable Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalization legislation. Certainly such a matter of personal liberty is none of the business of the government. I am also concerned with the way religion is given special priveleges in government, but my support for freedom of speech and belief supercedes this concern. Additionally, the punishment is far too harsh, and it would harm religions that present no threat to society such as Unitarianism, Buddhism, Secular Humanism, and depending on one's very definition of religion, Atheism. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 29, 2006, 06:31:40 PM Religious Freedom Act
1. The Pledge of Allegiance is abolished. 2. There shall be no official statement of patriotism, whether recitation is voluntary or involuntary, to be legislated by the Pacific government. 3. All tax benefits and exemptions heralded towards churches and religious institutions are hereby abolished. Resolution Concerning Currency 1. It is the position of the people of the Pacific region that no currency should designate belief or disbelief in a higher power. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 29, 2006, 06:56:21 PM A note from your friendly neighbourhood dictator; certain things will happen in the Pacific if certain things get passed by the regional legislature.
Thankee. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 29, 2006, 07:18:27 PM Don't worry, I thought the proposals were hilarious. :D
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 29, 2006, 07:21:41 PM I'm willing to give it a chance, but what protections against falsification are we going to have?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 29, 2006, 07:48:02 PM I'm willing to give it a chance, but what protections against falsification are we going to have? Why would a doctor intentionally, involuntarily kill his patient? It sounds right out of a lawsuit asking for a nice punitive damages settlement. Not that I'm disagreeing with protection against falsification. Just playing devil's advocate. It's not enough for me to oppose the law, though. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 29, 2006, 07:50:19 PM I'm willing to give it a chance, but what protections against falsification are we going to have? Why would a doctor intentionally, involuntarily kill his patient? It sounds right out of a lawsuit asking for a nice punitive damages settlement. Not that I'm disagreeing with protection against falsification. Just playing devil's advocate. It's not enough for me to oppose the law, though. Are we to assume that no doctor would ever murder a patient? It's happened. There is no harm in making protections to avoid this. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on December 30, 2006, 03:07:43 AM You people have no sense of fun. :(
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: platypeanArchcow on December 30, 2006, 11:38:52 AM Republican Party Illegalisation Act: Nay.
Long live the IDPA! Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act: Aye. Alcohol Freedom Act: Aye. Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act: Aye. Establishment of Sky Kingdom as Official Religion Act 1. Sky Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Kingdom) will become the official religion of the Pacific Region. 2. A 100m-high holy teapot will be built on San Bruno Mountain with regional funds. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Rob on December 30, 2006, 12:08:06 PM Republican Party Illegalisation Act: Aye
Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act: Aye Alcohol Freedom Act: Aye Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: jerusalemcar5 on December 30, 2006, 12:39:49 PM Aye to all except abolishment of organized religion.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 30, 2006, 04:04:18 PM My specific suggestion is to implement a legal witness protection of some type. I'm not familiar with euthanasia law, but I believe every actual euthanasia law (including Oregon's) has such a provision.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: ilikeverin on December 30, 2006, 06:08:20 PM You people have no sense of fun. :( That's what the Midwest is for, silly :D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on December 30, 2006, 07:47:50 PM You people have no sense of fun. :( That's what the Midwest is for, silly :D Why do you think I joined the party over there? ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 30, 2006, 11:08:58 PM After further review, not only must Montana be returned for New Mexico to be transferred to the Midwest Region, but I want Wyoming and Colorado as well.
The Pacific Region serves more than just the Pacific states, we are essentially the Western Region. Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana clearly fit better with our region than they do with the Midwest! I suspect ilikeverin will refuse such a trade, in which case he shall never have New Mexico! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: ilikeverin on December 31, 2006, 06:03:39 PM Copycat :P
Another example of the Pacific's desire to be just like the Midwest. It is sad how much struggle other regions will go in their drive to emulate the Midwest in all things it does. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 31, 2006, 07:29:21 PM Copycat :P Another example of the Pacific's desire to be just like the Midwest. It is sad how much struggle other regions will go in their drive to emulate the Midwest in all things it does. get your grubby midwestern paws off of our delicious montana >:( Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 04, 2007, 10:46:51 PM Republican Party Illegalisation Act: Abstain
Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act: Abstain Alcohol Freedom Act: Aye Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act: Abstain Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on January 05, 2007, 02:24:04 AM Republican Party Illegalisation Act: Abstain Come on, be a man and vote for freedom. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 05, 2007, 02:32:38 AM Republican Party Illegalisation Act fails 4-4-1.
Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act passes 6-1-2. Alcohol Freedom Act passes 6-2-1. Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act fails 4-4-1. I sign the Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act and the Alcohol Freedom Act into law with my magical signature, Jesus Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 05, 2007, 02:35:17 AM I officially open voting on the following.
New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution Pursuant to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the Pacific Region hereby consents to the transfer of the state of New Mexico from the Pacific region to the Midwest region. In addition, the following Constitutional Amendments have passed the Senate: Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules That Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 of the Constitution be amended to read as follows: Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for eight months for which he is qualified to vote shall have his registration no longer considered valid. The said voter may only be deregistered after missing four federal elections, not including runoffs and special elections. A vote in a special election or runoff will be counted towards activity the same as a vote in a regular federal election. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew. Backup Redistricting Amendment 1. In the event that the Governors have not adopted a redistricting plan as of noon, Eastern Standard Time on the third Wednesday prior to the opening of the ballot box for the regular election of District Senators, then the most recently adopted districting plan that meets the conditions of Article IV Section 4 of this Constitution using the data from the most recent Census shall be used as the districting plan. 2. In the further event that no previously adopted districting plan meets the conditions of Article IV Section 4 of this Constitution using the data from the most recent Census, then the Chief Justice of Atlasia shall have the authority to draw districts that meet the conditions of Article IV Section 4 of this Constitution using the data from the most recent Census. Please vote aye or nay on the above. A nice and easy to copy and paste ballot: New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules : Backup Redistricting Amendment: Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 05, 2007, 02:37:53 AM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Nay
Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules : Aye Backup Redistricting Amendment: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on January 05, 2007, 03:00:39 AM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Nay
Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules : Aye Backup Redistricting Amendment: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 05, 2007, 03:38:58 AM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Nay
Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules: Aye Backup Redistricting Amendment: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Bdub on January 05, 2007, 10:12:18 AM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Nay Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules: Aye Backup Redistricting Amendment: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on January 05, 2007, 01:28:17 PM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Nay
Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules: Aye Backup Redistricting Amendment: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 05, 2007, 03:15:10 PM *steps to the Pacific Legislature's podium*
*clears throat* As a former Senator and former Atlasian Secretary of State, and as a proud resident of the great State of New Mexico, I have become increasingly concerned about the spiral towards Stalinism in the Pacific Region led by a pack of extremist PC Nazis. This descent into insanity was first noted by the proposal of the extremist Reproductive Freedom Act on December 16, 2006. This Act, in particular the fourth clause but to some extent the fifth and sixth clauses, adopts the most extreme position imaginable on abortion, allowing for any abortion for any reason at any time, thus enabling, for example, an eighth-month abortion because the 12-year-old mother wants a boy instead of a girl. This puts the Pacific Region in the position of places such as China or India, where there is a noticeable imbalance between male and female children, especially in rural areas. The good citizens of New Mexico are appalled at this callous attitude towards life. And then on December 28, 2006, the wheels came off the tracks with an even more loony set of proposals. The slightly-less-insane Acts shall be covered first. First the Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act removes any and all safeguards against falsification or pressuring of individuals into suicide. For that matter, an individual suffering from depression could choose to off themselves instead of receiving treatment under this Act. And once again, the callous attitude towards life expressed in this bill repels the people of New Mexico. Then the Alcohol Freedom Act adopts the most extreme position imaginable, allowing anyone and everyone access to alcohol with no regard for the consequences whatsoever. Coming from a state that suffers the scourge of DWI, the idea of encouraging hordes of teenagers to add to DWI totals is patently insane. And given the numbers of injured and dead citizens caused by drunken drivers, adding to those totals strikes New Mexicans as highly immoral. On top of that, under this Act alcoholism would be encouraged by giving access to alcohol to impressionable youngsters of any age, when they are not capable of making reasoned choices. Do you think an 8-year-old can truly understand the risks and consequences of alcohol? Now we proceed to the Acts that are not only insane and extremist, but outright unconstitutional. The Republican Party Illegalisation Act outright violates Article VI of the Atlasian Constitution, banning one political party and enacting forced membership in another political party, and/or forced exile from the Pacific Region. I never thought I would see the imposition of political rules worthy of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, but that is what we have here, and the good people of New Mexico will not stand for it! And then we have the Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act, one of the most spiteful, venomous pieces of legislation we have ever seen. Also outright violating Article VI of the Atlasian Constitution, this Act outlaws all organized religion in a nasty secular-atheist manner worthy of the Communist Bloc. In addition to the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment there is again forced rendition outside the Pacific Region. As a State that deeply respects the beliefs of its citizens there are not words to describe the revulsion of New Mexicans to this Act. The so-called compromise, the misleadingly named Religious Freedom Act, along with the accompanying Resolution Concerning Currency are nothing more than an attempt to put honey around vicious anti-religious legislation and enforce de facto forced secularization in the public sphere and is also opposed, especially given the bigoted comments made by its proponent: "Additionally, the punishment is far too harsh, and it would harm religions that present no threat to society such as Unitarianism, Buddhism, Secular Humanism, and depending on one's very definition of religion, Atheism." The State of New Mexico expresses its deep, deep, discontent with the recent actions of the Pacific Regional Government and reserves the right for further action if this plummet into extremism is not stopped. I note that there was a shockingly high percentage of Pacific Legislators that voted for both the Republican Party Illegalisation Act and the Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act, and I notice that the measures only failed not because there was actually a majority of Legislators opposed to such measures, but because of some strategic abstentions designed to avoid federal intervention. The good citizens of New Mexico are not fooled by abstentions designed to hide the true feelings of the legislators who abstained - their desire for Stalinist rule. >:( --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (OOC: ;D ) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 05, 2007, 04:16:21 PM *steps to the Pacific Legislature's podium* *clears throat* As a former Senator and former Atlasian Secretary of State, and as a proud resident of the great State of New Mexico, I have become increasingly concerned about the spiral towards Stalinism in the Pacific Region led by a pack of extremist PC Nazis. This descent into insanity was first noted by the proposal of the extremist Reproductive Freedom Act on December 16, 2006. This Act, in particular the fourth clause but to some extent the fifth and sixth clauses, adopts the most extreme position imaginable on abortion, allowing for any abortion for any reason at any time, thus enabling, for example, an eighth-month abortion because the 12-year-old mother wants a boy instead of a girl. This puts the Pacific Region in the position of places such as China or India, where there is a noticeable imbalance between male and female children, especially in rural areas. The good citizens of New Mexico are appalled at this callous attitude towards life. And then on December 28, 2006, the wheels came off the tracks with an even more loony set of proposals. The slightly-less-insane Acts shall be covered first. First the Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act removes any and all safeguards against falsification or pressuring of individuals into suicide. For that matter, an individual suffering from depression could choose to off themselves instead of receiving treatment under this Act. And once again, the callous attitude towards life expressed in this bill repels the people of New Mexico. Then the Alcohol Freedom Act adopts the most extreme position imaginable, allowing anyone and everyone access to alcohol with no regard for the consequences whatsoever. Coming from a state that suffers the scourge of DWI, the idea of encouraging hordes of teenagers to add to DWI totals is patently insane. And given the numbers of injured and dead citizens caused by drunken drivers, adding to those totals strikes New Mexicans as highly immoral. On top of that, under this Act alcoholism would be encouraged by giving access to alcohol to impressionable youngsters of any age, when they are not capable of making reasoned choices. Do you think an 8-year-old can truly understand the risks and consequences of alcohol? Now we proceed to the Acts that are not only insane and extremist, but outright unconstitutional. The Republican Party Illegalisation Act outright violates Article VI of the Atlasian Constitution, banning one political party and enacting forced membership in another political party, and/or forced exile from the Pacific Region. I never thought I would see the imposition of political rules worthy of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, but that is what we have here, and the good people of New Mexico will not stand for it! And then we have the Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act, one of the most spiteful, venomous pieces of legislation we have ever seen. Also outright violating Article VI of the Atlasian Constitution, this Act outlaws all organized religion in a nasty secular-atheist manner worthy of the Communist Bloc. In addition to the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment there is again forced rendition outside the Pacific Region. As a State that deeply respects the beliefs of its citizens there are not words to describe the revulsion of New Mexicans to this Act. The so-called compromise, the misleadingly named Religious Freedom Act, along with the accompanying Resolution Concerning Currency are nothing more than an attempt to put honey around vicious anti-religious legislation and enforce de facto forced secularization in the public sphere and is also opposed, especially given the bigoted comments made by its proponent: "Additionally, the punishment is far too harsh, and it would harm religions that present no threat to society such as Unitarianism, Buddhism, Secular Humanism, and depending on one's very definition of religion, Atheism." The State of New Mexico expresses its deep, deep, discontent with the recent actions of the Pacific Regional Government and reserves the right for further action if this plummet into extremism is not stopped. I note that there was a shockingly high percentage of Pacific Legislators that voted for both the Republican Party Illegalisation Act and the Abolishment Of Organised Religion Act, and I notice that the measures only failed not because there was actually a majority of Legislators opposed to such measures, but because of some strategic abstentions designed to avoid federal intervention. The good citizens of New Mexico are not fooled by abstentions designed to hide the true feelings of the legislators who abstained - their desire for Stalinist rule. >:( --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (OOC: ;D ) First, you're free to run for office in the Pacific Region should you desire change, but you have chosen not to do so. Second, you can propose your own legislation, but again you have not done this. Third, you can always leave the Pacific Region, but you cannot take New Mexico with you. You can only do this by registering in a state located outside of the Pacific Region. The Republican Party Illegalisation Act and the Abolishment of Organised Religion Act both failed. Personally, I did not vote for them and find it amusing that you find this "Stalinist" as you specifically target me in your last sentence. I abstained on the Assisted Suicide Act, too. How was this strategic? It was simply something I did not want to vote on, as were the other two. So I abstained. Due to the excellent point brought up by Alcon, I would have vetoed it, however regardless of this it would have had 2/3 of the vote, anyway, making it impossible for me to veto. Most of those "acts" were jokes as the one who proposed them said. Please do not call me a Stalinist or a Nazi, especially when you desire joining a region that wants to steal states from other regions and impose a dictator. Hypocrite. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Dowager Mod on January 05, 2007, 04:24:34 PM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution:Nay
Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules :Aye Backup Redistricting Amendment:Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 05, 2007, 04:25:24 PM So let me get this straight. A 12-year-old girl intentionally gets pregnant, but then gets an abortion because she wanted a boy instead of a girl.
I realize that you disagree on this issue. That is fine. There is no need to consider such whacky and near-impossible scenarios such as the one above. If a 12-year-old got pregnant, I'm not sure the first question on her mind is whether it's a boy or not. Either way, these decisions - regardless of age - are best left to the woman. I would prefer that women who seek to gender-select their baby get an abortion instead of attempting infanticide, wouldn't you? Your comparison to China and India is unnecessary because the Pacific region does not share their sexist views. My comment regarding religion is not bigoted on anything but belief. You will note that I absolutely do not support restricting belief including the right to religion and my legislation is not vicious in any sense of the word. People will still be able to celebrate their religious beliefs as they have always done. My legislation will not restrict anyone's rights to their freedom of belief, speech, thought, and conscience. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 05, 2007, 05:47:29 PM First, you're free to run for office in the Pacific Region should you desire change, but you have chosen not to do so. Second, you can propose your own legislation, but again you have not done this. Third, you can always leave the Pacific Region, but you cannot take New Mexico with you. You can only do this by registering in a state located outside of the Pacific Region. The Republican Party Illegalisation Act and the Abolishment of Organised Religion Act both failed. Personally, I did not vote for them and find it amusing that you find this "Stalinist" as you specifically target me in your last sentence. I abstained on the Assisted Suicide Act, too. How was this strategic? It was simply something I did not want to vote on, as were the other two. So I abstained. Due to the excellent point brought up by Alcon, I would have vetoed it, however regardless of this it would have had 2/3 of the vote, anyway, making it impossible for me to veto. Most of those "acts" were jokes as the one who proposed them said. Please do not call me a Stalinist or a Nazi, especially when you desire joining a region that wants to steal states from other regions and impose a dictator. Hypocrite. To your first and second points, I respond that I'm trying to leave the Pacific Region instead of making the Pacific Region conform to my viewpoint. Not to mention that everything since December has convinced me that the region has, quite frankly, gone bonkers and it would be a futile effort. To your third point, I clearly disagree with you. I established the precedent that States were not permanently wedded to Regions in the first place and given that, at the risk of being blunt, more than anyone else [OOC: in this simluation], I am New Mexico, and I choose not to leave its people in the grip of an increasingly unsavory set of Regional laws. I will not be leaving New Mexico. You will have to pardon me if I do not fully trust your intentions. Your very name was created to mock religion, you are virulently anti-religious, and you are one of the most reflexively partisan anti-Republicans in all of Atlasia. And my last sentence was saying that the abstentions wanted to vote for those Acts but did not want to risk possible federal repercussions. After all, if you truly opposed those Acts you would have voted against them, now wouldn't you? And as those two Acts were definitely Stalinist, that paints those who failed to oppose them as, at the least, turning a blind eye to them. [OOC: actions do have consequences in-game, even if jokes in real-life they may be - this is a game world, after all] IC: If those Acts were supposed to be jokes, then I will point out that every passed Act is now law and that the Acts which - very narrowly - failed would have been law, violations of the Constitution they may be. How, pray tell, were the citizens of the Pacific Region supposed to believe that their elected legislators were playing a cruel joke on them? Given the enactment of one extreme Act after another, why would they deem any proposal to be a joke? And as for the use of PC Nazi (the Stalinist comment is explained above), I take that from the great publication Red Flag (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=50820.msg1086602#msg1086602), and consider it quite accurate in regards to the legislation proposed and passed since December 2006 in the Pacific. So let me get this straight. A 12-year-old girl intentionally gets pregnant, but then gets an abortion because she wanted a boy instead of a girl. I realize that you disagree on this issue. That is fine. There is no need to consider such whacky and near-impossible scenarios such as the one above. If a 12-year-old got pregnant, I'm not sure the first question on her mind is whether it's a boy or not. Either way, these decisions - regardless of age - are best left to the woman. I would prefer that women who seek to gender-select their baby get an abortion instead of attempting infanticide, wouldn't you? Your comparison to China and India is unnecessary because the Pacific region does not share their sexist views. My comment regarding religion is not bigoted on anything but belief. You will note that I absolutely do not support restricting belief including the right to religion and my legislation is not vicious in any sense of the word. People will still be able to celebrate their religious beliefs as they have always done. My legislation will not restrict anyone's rights to their freedom of belief, speech, thought, and conscience. I picked such an extreme scenario precisely to point out what is allowable under the Act - it is such an extreme Act that anything is possible. "Either way, these decisions - regardless of age - are best left to the woman." Opinion, not fact, and totally contemptuous of the fact that a living being is getting killed - and are you going to claim that every abortion, even one done in the third trimester, is not killing a living being? I also find it astonishing that a gender-selected abortion is considered worthy of legal protection. And adoption is far superior as an option to either abortion or infanticide (not that there is much difference) so your presented choices are a false dichotomy. What next? Abortions of mixed-race babies? Abortions of babies with the genetic signature for homosexuality? Hey, everything is allowed under this Act. And your comment about India and China I find idealistic - considering how many abortions are performed for the sake of 'convenience' under prior laws, why would you think those in Atlasia already getting abortions for convenience's sake - not for the life-of-the-mother/rape/incest/health-of-the-mother reasons, which can plausibly be argued as necessary - would have any compunctions about any other reason whatsoever? [OOC: this is highly radical legislation that would certainly draw intense opposition] "Not bigoted on anything but belief?" You outright expressed your hostility toward a huge portion of humanity's - and Atlasia's - believers by claiming that 'only' faiths such as "Unitarianism, Buddhism, Secular Humanism, and depending on one's very definition of religion, Atheism" "present[ed] no threat to society". That strongly implies that you would support legislation more narrowly-tailored to outlaw only those faiths you deem a 'threat to society', which by your careful word choice includes Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and God knows what else. What, would the Abolishment of Most Organized Religion Act gotten your approval? The Abolishment of All Religions We Don't Like Act? And as a factual counterpoint, given the bloody history of the Soviet Union the idea that Atheism has never been a "threat to society" is clearly untrue. For that matter, the very Abolishment of Organized Religion Actitself contradicts your view, for who would left unbanned except Atheists and Secular Humanists? As for your legislation, removal of even neutral expressions such as "In God We Trust" through legislation that does nothing but target belief is de facto enforced Secular Humanism. You cannot utter a word of faith in the public sphere, and then you say they serve no charitable or useful purpose and remove all tax exemptions? That is hostility toward religion, not neutrality. And then there is not any recitation of patriotism, even voluntary, allowed? What the hell is this, the European Union? [OOC: and there would really be opposition to this - do any of you truly believe that legislation like what has happened in the Pacific wouldn't have sparked severe counterreactions?] Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 05, 2007, 06:02:47 PM To your first and second points, I respond that I'm trying to leave the Pacific Region instead of making the Pacific Region conform to my viewpoint. Not to mention that everything since December has convinced me that the region has, quite frankly, gone bonkers and it would be a futile effort. To your third point, I clearly disagree with you. I established the precedent that States were not permanently wedded to Regions in the first place and given that, at the risk of being blunt, more than anyone else [OOC: in this simluation], I am New Mexico, and I choose not to leave its people in the grip of an increasingly unsavory set of Regional laws. I will not be leaving New Mexico. You will have to pardon me if I do not fully trust your intentions. Your very name was created to mock religion, you are virulently anti-religious, and you are one of the most reflexively partisan anti-Republicans in all of Atlasia. And my last sentence was saying that the abstentions wanted to vote for those Acts but did not want to risk possible federal repercussions. After all, if you truly opposed those Acts you would have voted against them, now wouldn't you? And as those two Acts were definitely Stalinist, that paints those who failed to oppose them as, at the least, turning a blind eye to them. [OOC: actions do have consequences in-game, even if jokes in real-life they may be - this is a game world, after all] IC: If those Acts were supposed to be jokes, then I will point out that every passed Act is now law and that the Acts which - very narrowly - failed would have been law, violations of the Constitution they may be. How, pray tell, were the citizens of the Pacific Region supposed to believe that their elected legislators were playing a cruel joke on them? Given the enactment of one extreme Act after another, why would they deem any proposal to be a joke? And as for the use of PC Nazi (the Stalinist comment is explained above), I take that from the great publication Red Flag (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=50820.msg1086602#msg1086602), and consider it quite accurate in regards to the legislation proposed and passed since December 2006 in the Pacific. Something "almost" happened, that means it didn't. Relax. What exactly happened in December, anyway? You know what you have to do for New Mexico to join the Midwest. You have to convince Verin to trade Montana. Otherwise, you're staying in the Pacific. As the current votes show, chances are you are the only one in the region who supports New Mexico joining the Midwest, and you're going to have convince 67% of the region to just give you up. I don't think you can make this happen, unless you arrange the trade of Montana. And I still think it is amusing that you call me a Stalinist when I have in no way abused my powers as Governor. Verin, on the other hand, is an imperalistic dictator-wannabe. He is clearly more of a Stalinist than I am. Would you not have to be a fan of Stalinism to leave the non-Stalinist regioin of the Pacific for the Stalinist region of the Midwest? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on January 05, 2007, 06:15:14 PM I shall not apologise for proposing "Stalinist" regional legislation that was clearly intended to be humourous and nothing more. I was under the impression that everyone was aware of my propensity toward exaggeratedly vitriolic humour and therefore assumed that everyone would be sensible enough to simply read through my blatantly unconstitutional proposals, maybe chuckle at how utterly ridiculous they were, and move on without degenerating into angry rambling. Apparently I was incorrect.
I don't believe that I have done anything noteworthily offensive as Pacific Senator, though obviously if the Pacific residents disagree then they are perfectly free not to re-elect me in February. I haven't heard any feedback aside from Gabu's completely incomprehensible private message (and Gabu is not in the Pacific Region anyway). If people are seriously getting irritated with what I have been doing, I desire to be enlightened as to what comes across as being most bothersome. I don't remember what happened in December that distresses you so much. You shall have to refresh our memories. Also, I am not a Stalinist. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on January 05, 2007, 06:17:53 PM I shall not apologise for proposing "Stalinist" regional legislation that was clearly intended to be humourous and nothing more. I think you should propose legislation to ban the free transfer of money in exchange of goods or services next. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 05, 2007, 06:23:32 PM Something "almost" happened, that means it didn't. Relax. What exactly happened in December, anyway? You know what you have to do for New Mexico to join the Midwest. You have to convince Verin to trade Montana. Otherwise, you're staying in the Pacific. As the current votes show, chances are you are the only one in the region who supports New Mexico joining the Midwest, and you're going to have convince 67% of the region to just give you up. I don't think you can make this happen, unless you arrange the trade of Montana. And I still think it is amusing that you call me a Stalinist when I have in no way abused my powers as Governor. Verin, on the other hand, is an imperalistic dictator-wannabe. He is clearly more of a Stalinist than I am. Would you not have to be a fan of Stalinism to leave the non-Stalinist regioin of the Pacific for the Stalinist region of the Midwest? Pardon me, I had a frog in my throat. :) The fact that the Pacific has such a large Stalinist contingent is disturbing. >:( December was when the lunatic legislation began to roll into the Pacific. Actually, I doubt I'll get approval in any event, but I'll [OOC: play the game] go through this circus of flaming hoops as a gesture of good faith! And the Region is showing itself to be supporters of imperialism, by preventing New Mexico from choosing its own destiny! Nay, for Verin is the very model of a good governor, and the Midwest is the very model of a good Region! :P Their legislation may be lighthearted, but it isn't as radical on a base level as things getting enacted into law right this second in the Pacific! >:( OOC: Heh heh heh heh heh Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on January 05, 2007, 06:25:21 PM I shall not apologise for proposing "Stalinist" regional legislation that was clearly intended to be humourous and nothing more. I think you should propose legislation to ban the free transfer of money in exchange of goods or services next. Anti-Gabu Act 1. Gabu is hereby banned from the Pacific Region. 2. Smuggling Gabu into the Pacific Region is punishable by a 200,000$ fine and lifelong exile to Ethiopia. (This is not a serious proposal. Please do not treat it as such.) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 05, 2007, 06:37:39 PM I shall not apologise for proposing "Stalinist" regional legislation that was clearly intended to be humourous and nothing more. I was under the impression that everyone was aware of my propensity toward exaggeratedly vitriolic humour and therefore assumed that everyone would be sensible enough to simply read through my blatantly unconstitutional proposals, maybe chuckle at how utterly ridiculous they were, and move on without degenerating into angry rambling. Apparently I was incorrect. I don't believe that I have done anything noteworthily offensive as Pacific Senator, though obviously if the Pacific residents disagree then they are perfectly free not to re-elect me in February. I haven't heard any feedback aside from Gabu's completely incomprehensible private message (and Gabu is not in the Pacific Region anyway). If people are seriously getting irritated with what I have been doing, I desire to be enlightened as to what comes across as being most bothersome. I don't remember what happened in December that distresses you so much. You shall have to refresh our memories. Also, I am not a Stalinist. [OOC: But in-game, there would be no way for the people of the Pacific to know that, now is there? :P ] As stated before, that's when the nutty extremist legislation arrived. :P [OOC: Again, in-game, proposing and voting for that legislation would make you a Stalinist. :P ] Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 05, 2007, 06:38:35 PM I shall not apologise for proposing "Stalinist" regional legislation that was clearly intended to be humourous and nothing more. I think you should propose legislation to ban the free transfer of money in exchange of goods or services next. Anti-Gabu Act 1. Gabu is hereby banned from the Pacific Region. 2. Smuggling Gabu into the Pacific Region is punishable by a 200,000$ fine and lifelong exile to Ethiopia. (This is not a serious proposal. Please do not treat it as such.) SEE! SEE! MORE STALINIST LEGISLATION! >:( Left yourself open to that one ^_^ Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 05, 2007, 06:41:04 PM Something "almost" happened, that means it didn't. Relax. What exactly happened in December, anyway? You know what you have to do for New Mexico to join the Midwest. You have to convince Verin to trade Montana. Otherwise, you're staying in the Pacific. As the current votes show, chances are you are the only one in the region who supports New Mexico joining the Midwest, and you're going to have convince 67% of the region to just give you up. I don't think you can make this happen, unless you arrange the trade of Montana. And I still think it is amusing that you call me a Stalinist when I have in no way abused my powers as Governor. Verin, on the other hand, is an imperalistic dictator-wannabe. He is clearly more of a Stalinist than I am. Would you not have to be a fan of Stalinism to leave the non-Stalinist regioin of the Pacific for the Stalinist region of the Midwest? Pardon me, I had a frog in my throat. :) The fact that the Pacific has such a large Stalinist contingent is disturbing. >:( December was when the lunatic legislation began to roll into the Pacific. Actually, I doubt I'll get approval in any event, but I'll [OOC: play the game] go through this circus of flaming hoops as a gesture of good faith! And the Region is showing itself to be supporters of imperialism, by preventing New Mexico from choosing its own destiny! Nay, for Verin is the very model of a good governor, and the Midwest is the very model of a good Region! :P Their legislation may be lighthearted, but it isn't as radical on a base level as things getting enacted into law right this second in the Pacific! >:( OOC: Heh heh heh heh heh WMS, I strongly disagree. I am sure we would overwhelmingly trade New Mexico for Montana. However, we feel like we are being robbed of a state. The only one who is being difficult is Verin. Montana does not have any voters, therefore Montana could not say no to being traded. Only the Midwesterners can deny the trade of Montana. Only Verin is keeping you in the Pacific, WMS. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 05, 2007, 06:48:40 PM Something "almost" happened, that means it didn't. Relax. What exactly happened in December, anyway? You know what you have to do for New Mexico to join the Midwest. You have to convince Verin to trade Montana. Otherwise, you're staying in the Pacific. As the current votes show, chances are you are the only one in the region who supports New Mexico joining the Midwest, and you're going to have convince 67% of the region to just give you up. I don't think you can make this happen, unless you arrange the trade of Montana. And I still think it is amusing that you call me a Stalinist when I have in no way abused my powers as Governor. Verin, on the other hand, is an imperalistic dictator-wannabe. He is clearly more of a Stalinist than I am. Would you not have to be a fan of Stalinism to leave the non-Stalinist regioin of the Pacific for the Stalinist region of the Midwest? Pardon me, I had a frog in my throat. :) The fact that the Pacific has such a large Stalinist contingent is disturbing. >:( December was when the lunatic legislation began to roll into the Pacific. Actually, I doubt I'll get approval in any event, but I'll [OOC: play the game] go through this circus of flaming hoops as a gesture of good faith! And the Region is showing itself to be supporters of imperialism, by preventing New Mexico from choosing its own destiny! Nay, for Verin is the very model of a good governor, and the Midwest is the very model of a good Region! :P Their legislation may be lighthearted, but it isn't as radical on a base level as things getting enacted into law right this second in the Pacific! >:( OOC: Heh heh heh heh heh WMS, I strongly disagree. I am sure we would overwhelmingly trade New Mexico for Montana. However, we feel like we are being robbed of a state. The only one who is being difficult is Verin. Montana does not have any voters, therefore Montana could not say no to being traded. Only the Midwesterners can deny the trade of Montana. Only Verin is keeping you in the Pacific, WMS. Thank God, someone finally figured out what I'm doing ^_- Well then, I shall present this proposal to the mighty ILV and await his reply. 8) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Rob on January 05, 2007, 07:09:19 PM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Nay
Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules : Aye Backup Redistricting Amendment: Aye I'm disturbed at the failure of the reasonable anti-Republican and anti-religious measures. It seems that the radical right exercises considerable power, even in the moderate Pacific Region. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 05, 2007, 07:11:18 PM I'm disturbed at the failure of the reasonable anti-Republican and anti-religious measures. It seems that the radical right exercises considerable power, even in the moderate Pacific Region. Smartass. Only from the viewpoint of a Stalinist would those measures be deemed reasonable. >:( Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: ilikeverin on January 05, 2007, 08:41:09 PM Something "almost" happened, that means it didn't. Relax. What exactly happened in December, anyway? You know what you have to do for New Mexico to join the Midwest. You have to convince Verin to trade Montana. Otherwise, you're staying in the Pacific. As the current votes show, chances are you are the only one in the region who supports New Mexico joining the Midwest, and you're going to have convince 67% of the region to just give you up. I don't think you can make this happen, unless you arrange the trade of Montana. And I still think it is amusing that you call me a Stalinist when I have in no way abused my powers as Governor. Verin, on the other hand, is an imperalistic dictator-wannabe. He is clearly more of a Stalinist than I am. Would you not have to be a fan of Stalinism to leave the non-Stalinist regioin of the Pacific for the Stalinist region of the Midwest? Pardon me, I had a frog in my throat. :) The fact that the Pacific has such a large Stalinist contingent is disturbing. >:( December was when the lunatic legislation began to roll into the Pacific. Actually, I doubt I'll get approval in any event, but I'll [OOC: play the game] go through this circus of flaming hoops as a gesture of good faith! And the Region is showing itself to be supporters of imperialism, by preventing New Mexico from choosing its own destiny! Nay, for Verin is the very model of a good governor, and the Midwest is the very model of a good Region! :P Their legislation may be lighthearted, but it isn't as radical on a base level as things getting enacted into law right this second in the Pacific! >:( OOC: Heh heh heh heh heh WMS, I strongly disagree. I am sure we would overwhelmingly trade New Mexico for Montana. However, we feel like we are being robbed of a state. The only one who is being difficult is Verin. Montana does not have any voters, therefore Montana could not say no to being traded. Only the Midwesterners can deny the trade of Montana. Only Verin is keeping you in the Pacific, WMS. Thank God, someone finally figured out what I'm doing ^_- Well then, I shall present this proposal to the mighty ILV and await his reply. 8) The Midwest shall never part with its beloved Montana! Why, its citizens practically self-immolated themselves to join the Midwest, it would be improper of us to give them back up! It is also the ancestral homeland of lewicus tronheimius, a rare cat native to the Midwest! I am highly disappointed you continue to deny the will of the people of New Mexico, Jesus. Whether or not Montana is traded, it is the sovereign right of the people of New Mexico (and Utah and Idaho) to transfer themselves willy-nilly between regions whenever they please, so long as "willy-nilly" is really just a synonym for "towards the Midwest"! It is your responsibility as currently officially recognized controller of the state of New Mexico to represent the state's citizens, and that is what the citizens want! OOC: I was looking forward to the day when OOC would be used in Atlasia :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 05, 2007, 10:35:44 PM See what I mean, WMS? An empty state. The wannabe dictator won't even trade an empty state for you, while I seek compromise!
Ilikeverin? More like Verin the Brutal! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 06, 2007, 03:28:24 AM and are you going to claim that every abortion, even one done in the third trimester, is not killing a living being? I never made any such statement. Are you next going to contend that we should expand such rights to all living beings? Abortions of mixed-race babies? Why would a woman who consented to sex with someone from another race get an abortion of a mixed-race fetus? You can present all sorts of unlikely scenarios. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare; given that women normally only partake in that tragic solution in the most dire of circumstances, why should we legislate which circumstances are appropriate? Only a highly small percentage of abortion clinics even perform them, anyway. That strongly implies that you would support legislation more narrowly-tailored to outlaw only those faiths you deem a 'threat to society' My main reason for opposing the legislation as stated was that it infringes on freedom of religion and belief. I do not support any bans on religions and I voted accordingly. The comments that followed it were personal commentary and not meant to be translated into political causes. There was no reason to believe that I support such ideas as you imply. given the bloody history of the Soviet Union the idea that Atheism has never been a "threat to society" is clearly untrue. Stalin was a nutso dictator who forced a religious belief on his citizens; that's obviously not going to work regardless of the religion. Either way you make an assumption that atheism is a threat to society because Stalin was atheist, yet you overlook the overwhelming majority of atheists who are good and decent people, and often have stronger moral compasses than anyone else. For that matter, the very Abolishment of Organized Religion Actitself contradicts your view Great. Notice that I voted "NAY" on it. removal of even neutral expressions such as "In God We Trust" through legislation It's a resolution, not legislation that will change anything. And the phrase is not neutral. What if our money said "In Allah We Trust"? "In No God We Trust"? Would you like that? You cannot utter a word of faith in the public sphere That is not what the bill does. And then there is not any recitation of patriotism, even voluntary, allowed? NO. Stop trying to read fascism into my bills. The bill merely removes a government-written statement of patriotism as the federal government did in 2005. It does not outlaw anything. ANYTHING. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 06, 2007, 08:04:53 AM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Nay Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules : Aye Backup Redistricting Amendment: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: minionofmidas on January 06, 2007, 10:04:15 AM I am emotionally attached to Montana, but (unlike my boss) I would be ready to contemplate a transfer of Colorado or Wyoming for New Mexico as a means of second-to-last resort.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on January 06, 2007, 02:11:19 PM After realising that I proposed legislation to completely legalise all recreational drugs at some point last night, I deleted my post. I might consider proposing a similar bill once I sober up completely, though that might take some time as I am currently on very heavy painkillers.
I still don't know why the fascist who voted against the Reproductive Freedom Act, the Physician-Assisted Suicide Act, and the Alcohol Freedom Act (among other things) has resorted to calling Ebowed a fascist. () Why should the government become involved with a woman's personal decisions? Why should the government become involved with any individual's personal decisions? Why should the government be responsible for enforcing a minimum drinking age that most teenagers completely ignore? My attempts at banning organised religion were clearly intended to be blatantly offensive, unconstitutional bullsh**t and you can quit pretending to believe otherwise. Keep sticking your head in the sand and pretending that I was being completely serious but you're just making others think that you are an idiot now. Ebowed',s propositions are quite legitimate, unlike mine, and I have no problems with them. Religion has no place in our government. Religion is a personal matter, not the business of the government. Here, let us perform some analysis on Ebowed',s propositions. 1. The Pledge of Allegiance is abolished. Quote 2. There shall be no official statement of patriotism, whether recitation is voluntary or involuntary, to be legislated by the Pacific government. Again, there is no illegalisation involved. You are free to think of unofficial statements of patriotism and recite those. The government is simply refusing to adopt an official statement. What is so fascist about that?Quote 3. All tax benefits and exemptions heralded towards churches and religious institutions are hereby abolished. Religious institutions should not be receiving benefits that secular institutions do not. Simple as that.Quote 1. It is the position of the people of the Pacific region that no currency should designate belief or disbelief in a higher power. "In God We Trust" will be removed from our currency. Does that mean that we shall be rioting for "In God We Don't Trust" to be added? Of course not. Absence of pro-religious statements does not directly imply anti-religious sentiments and anyone who believes as such is being ridiculous.Oh, and I fully intend to assist in making it well nigh impossible for New Mexico to leave the Pacific until we receive at least one other state from the Midwest in exchange. You vote fascistly, we vote fascistly. Simple as that. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on January 06, 2007, 06:14:21 PM I am emotionally attached to Montana, but (unlike my boss) I would be ready to contemplate a transfer of Colorado or Wyoming for New Mexico as a means of second-to-last resort. And we just suddenly became emotionally attached to Montana AND Colorado. We might become emotionally attached to Wyoming too if the midwest doesn't hurry up. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: ilikeverin on January 06, 2007, 07:23:13 PM I am emotionally attached to Montana, but (unlike my boss) I would be ready to contemplate a transfer of Colorado or Wyoming for New Mexico as a means of second-to-last resort. And we just suddenly became emotionally attached to Montana AND Colorado. We might become emotionally attached to Wyoming too if the midwest doesn't hurry up. Well, too late, because we're already emotionally attached to New Mexico, Idaho, and Utah. We pre-emptively became emotionally attached to defeat you :D Note we were one vote away from being emotionally attached to the ENTIRE PACIFIC. So nyah. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on January 06, 2007, 07:24:33 PM Well, too late, because we're already emotionally attached to New Mexico, Idaho, and Utah. We pre-emptively became emotionally attached to defeat you :D That's really a shame, because you aren't even getting New Mexico. Note we were one vote away from being emotionally attached to the ENTIRE PACIFIC. So nyah. I don't know what that means. Sorry, but I haven't been following your latest fascist power grabs. Unlike the Midwest, the Pacific relies on democracy. Except, you know, when we rely on blowing the crap out of Belle Fourche, South Dakota. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on January 06, 2007, 07:38:27 PM Unlike the Midwest, the Pacific relies on democracy. Except, you know, when we rely on blowing the crap out of Belle Fourche, South Dakota. How did you blow Belle Fourche out of itself? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on January 06, 2007, 07:47:58 PM Unlike the Midwest, the Pacific relies on democracy. Except, you know, when we rely on blowing the crap out of Belle Fourche, South Dakota. How did you blow Belle Fourche out of itself? I have discussed this response with the Pacific Region's advisers, who unanimously agreed to release the following statement: Zing! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: ilikeverin on January 06, 2007, 11:18:18 PM Unlike the Midwest, the Pacific relies on democracy. Except, you know, when we rely on blowing the crap out of Belle Fourche, South Dakota. How did you blow Belle Fourche out of itself? I have discussed this response with the Pacific Region's advisers, who unanimously agreed to release the following statement: Zing! The people of Belle Fourche are shocked and disturbed that you happen to be insulting their crap. It makes a lovely fertilizer, thank you very much. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on January 08, 2007, 01:45:56 AM INTRODUCED BECAUSE I HATE YOU ALL AND WANT YOU TO DIE
Pacific Drug Free Zone Act 1. The Pacific Region shall hereby be designated as a Drug Free Zone. 2. The usage of all recreational drugs is legalised. 3. The sale of all recreational drugs is legalised. 4. Crimes commmitted whilst under the influence of recreational drugs shall be prosecuted as crimes committed whilst in any other mental state. 1. Alcon is a sexy, sexy piece of bread. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 08, 2007, 05:57:08 PM OOC: Do you know what OOC means, Ebowed? Now would be a good time to figure that out :P
I never made any such statement. Are you next going to contend that we should expand such rights to all living beings? So are you saying that although a fetus is a living being, it has no rights whatsoever then? If you deny that abortion is not killing a living being, that certainly seems like the only other meaning your words could have. And if that is the case, let me express my condemnation of the Disciple of Molech before me. Abortion is a matter of balancing the rights of two lives, not just one. And as for your slippery slope argument, I call BS. While cruelty should always be discouraged in the taking of life, there are circumstances in which the non-cruel taking of life is necessary - for survival, primarily. And your de facto equating of a fetus with any other form of life, say, a mosquito, I find bizarre and disturbing. Quote Why would a woman who consented to sex with someone from another race get an abortion of a mixed-race fetus? Perhaps their view is that mixed-racial sex is OK but mixed-racial progeny are not OK? This view would be a valid reason for abortion under your law - any reason is valid under your law. Quote You can present all sorts of unlikely scenarios. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare; given that women normally only partake in that tragic solution in the most dire of circumstances, why should we legislate which circumstances are appropriate? Only a highly small percentage of abortion clinics even perform them, anyway. Everything is allowable under your law - and [source] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion) it is a very extreme law - "Though abortion is legal in many Western European countries, the procedure is more widely available in the Quote My main reason for opposing the legislation as stated was that it infringes on freedom of religion and belief. I do not support any bans on religions and I voted accordingly. The comments that followed it were personal commentary and not meant to be translated into political causes. There was no reason to believe that I support such ideas as you imply. The comments you made implied otherwise - that your opposition was because the Act infringed on all freedom of religion and belief instead of infringing on only the freedom of religion and belief for most religions, the ones you don't like, and threw your actions into suspicion. Why should one hostile to - and this goes past mutual tolerance to outright hostility toward - almost all organized religion be trusted to oppose discrimination against it? You may have clarified your position now but your statement was not exactly a ringing endorsement of a policy of, yes, mutual tolerance. Quote Stalin was a nutso dictator who forced a religious belief on his citizens; that's obviously not going to work regardless of the religion. Either way you make an assumption that atheism is a threat to society because Stalin was atheist, yet you overlook the overwhelming majority of atheists who are good and decent people, and often have stronger moral compasses than anyone else. Lenin and Trotsky were much the same way in regards to religious faith, and there was atheist persecution all the years of the Soviet Union. This goes beyond just Stalin. And you second sentence is a straw man fallacy. I was disproving your point that atheists were not threats to society whereas almost all other faiths were by indicating that atheists were also capable of being threats to society by giving an example. The overwhelming majority of atheists may well be good and decent people. The same goes for most if not all of the faiths you insulted by omission. That combined with your "often have stronger moral compasses than anyone else" illustrates your religious bigotry quite strikingly. I think that most of the adherents of most faiths are "good and decent people." That is more tolerant than your position. Quote Great. Notice that I voted "NAY" on it. For going too far, as stated above. Quote It's a resolution, not legislation that will change anything. And the phrase is not neutral. What if our money said "In Allah We Trust"? "In No God We Trust"? Would you like that? Probably not, but it would be within the right of the government to do so. I prefer a cacophony of voices of faith, not a sterilized secular humanist silence. Quote That is not what the bill does. All expressions of faith would be private ones. Nothing but secularism would be allowed in the public sphere. If you disagree, then what if a local government decided to, say, put on a Christmas display? Is that OK? If so, why not on currency? If not, then the public sphere is blocked. This combined with your revoking tax-exempt status from all religious institutions is not a neutral act. But I shall answer that when I get to Everett's statement. Quote NO. Stop trying to read fascism into my bills. The bill merely removes a government-written statement of patriotism as the federal government did in 2005. It does not outlaw anything. ANYTHING. [OOC: Ah, dug up that Act...not as clear-cut as either its proponents or its opponents would believe...and that includes you :P ]Except a government voluntarily asking for a statement of support for it. But if a government shall not be allowed to ask for loyalty to it at all...well, that brings up some interesting questions indeed. [OOC: And you shall see them, soon. Let the game continue! ;) Everett I shall deal with separately because of forum post length restrictions. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 08, 2007, 06:38:59 PM Well, too late, because we're already emotionally attached to New Mexico, Idaho, and Utah. We pre-emptively became emotionally attached to defeat you :D That's really a shame, because you aren't even getting New Mexico. You are not the primary one to decide that. As you might find out quite soon. [OOC: Things are moving along nicely now ^_^ ] [OOC: You (Everett) also need to learn about OOC.] I still don't know why the fascist who voted against the Reproductive Freedom Act, the Physician-Assisted Suicide Act, and the Alcohol Freedom Act (among other things) has resorted to calling Ebowed a fascist. I see the immature Pacific Senator is starting off with a personal attack. Sad but expected. And I see that you have adopted the PC position that any opposition to extremist legislation makes one a fascist. Typical. And I used the phrase "PC Nazi" based on this fine publication (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=50820.msg1086602#msg1086602), which I already mentioned. Quote () Considering I have not yet given what my laws would be, I find this picture presumptuous. And I am surprised that you would hint that Ebowed is a fascist after all. Quote Why should the government become involved with a woman's personal decisions? Why should the government become involved with any individual's personal decisions? Why should the government be responsible for enforcing a minimum drinking age that most teenagers completely ignore? Because in the case of abortion, "a woman's personal decisions" impact other living beings. I believe the unborn fetus has rights, and as there are no others to protect their rights, the government has a right to become involved. You, clearly, disagree. Then I will ask you if you support or oppose anti-cruelty legislation in regards to animals, both domestic pets and on factories? The principle - to protect what cannot protect itself - is the same. As in regards to your anarcho-libertarian statement, if the government should not be involved with any individual's personal decisions, then why is there a minimum wage? Why are there any laws restricting whatever the individuals running businesses do whatsoever, including anti-discrimination laws? Why is there any intervention in the field of education - why is there public education at all? Why are there any government services? Do you back the abolition of government? If the government has no power to interfere in an individual's decisions, then why have a government, period? The reasons for a minimum drinking age actually flow into the reasons to have any laws at all - because there are public interests and public goods, and in this case it is in the public interest not to encourage drinking in those who share not in any of the responsibilities of dealing with the negative effects of it. And before you say it, I support lowering the drinking age to 18, the age where all rights and responsibilities are granted in full. Quote My attempts at banning organised religion were clearly intended to be blatantly offensive, unconstitutional bullsh**t and you can quit pretending to believe otherwise. [OOC: You're not getting it.] Quote Keep sticking your head in the sand and pretending that I was being completely serious but you're just making others think that you are an idiot now. IC: I see there are yet more personal attacks. OOC: If you meant that in reality, then back off. This is a GAME. Quote Ebowed',s propositions are quite legitimate, unlike mine, and I have no problems with them. Religion has no place in our government. Religion is a personal matter, not the business of the government. A cacophony of voices, not a sterilized silence. But I have covered that elsewhere. And looking below... Quote Here, let us perform some analysis on Ebowed',s propositions. [1-2 covered in Ebowed',s reply] Quote 3. All tax benefits and exemptions heralded towards churches and religious institutions are hereby abolished. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization) "A nonprofit organization (abbreviated "NPO", or "non-profit" or "not-for-profit") is an organization whose primary objective is to support an issue or matter of private interest or public concern for non-commercial purposes. Nonprofits may be involved in an innumerable range of areas relating to the arts, charities, education, politics, religion, research, sports or some other endeavor." Note that religion is included. I suggest you examine the 501(c) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29#501.28c.29.283.29) section as well. Are you and Ebowed suggesting that all non-profits lose their tax exemptions? If not, then how is Section 3 anything but anti-religious bigotry? Quote [also covered elsewhere] Oh, and I fully intend to assist in making it well nigh impossible for New Mexico to leave the Pacific until we receive at least one other state from the Midwest in exchange. You vote fascistly, we vote fascistly. Simple as that. [OOC: ;D That statement of yours works rather well with my plans, oh yes it does...] I see the Stalinist Queen is seeking to deny New Mexico Self-Determination. That is to be expected from one hostile to the good people of New Mexico... [OOC: I've been waiting to use that title... ;) ] INTRODUCED BECAUSE I HATE YOU ALL AND WANT YOU TO DIE Pacific Drug Free Zone Act 1. The Pacific Region shall hereby be designated as a Drug Free Zone. 2. The usage of all recreational drugs is legalised. 3. The sale of all recreational drugs is legalised. 4. Crimes commmitted whilst under the influence of recreational drugs shall be prosecuted as crimes committed whilst in any other mental state. The Stalinist Queen strikes again! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 08, 2007, 07:46:13 PM Just a note to say that I'm still reading this. Much material has been gathered for another Ingsoc publication (one not seen for months... maybe over a year?) and I'd like to thank you all for that ;)
Lenin and Trotsky were much the same way in regards to religious faith, and there was atheist persecution all the years of the Soviet Union. This goes beyond just Stalin. The irony here is that a classical Marxist view of religion would be that it, like the state, it would just wither away when the Socialist utopia is established, as it would no longer have a useful purpose to the people (or to put it another way; when things are good enough to mean that there's no need for opium to take the pain and suffering away). O/c the emphasis of Marxist-Leninism was always on the latter name... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on January 08, 2007, 08:54:56 PM You are not the primary one to decide that. As you might find out quite soon. You can do it without the majority approval of Pacificans? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on January 08, 2007, 11:08:41 PM Quote () Considering I have not yet given what my laws would be, I find this picture presumptuous. And I am surprised that you would hint that Ebowed is a fascist after all. () Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 09, 2007, 01:57:09 PM Just a note to say that I'm still reading this. Much material has been gathered for another Ingsoc publication (one not seen for months... maybe over a year?) and I'd like to thank you all for that ;) Lenin and Trotsky were much the same way in regards to religious faith, and there was atheist persecution all the years of the Soviet Union. This goes beyond just Stalin. The irony here is that a classical Marxist view of religion would be that it, like the state, it would just wither away when the Socialist utopia is established, as it would no longer have a useful purpose to the people (or to put it another way; when things are good enough to mean that there's no need for opium to take the pain and suffering away). O/c the emphasis of Marxist-Leninism was always on the latter name... OOC: Ah, good points Al. ^_^ I'll reply to Private Eye in its thread. ;) You are not the primary one to decide that. As you might find out quite soon. You can do it without the majority approval of Pacificans? OOC: *grins evilly* IC: New Mexican Self-Determination shall not be denied. 8) Considering I have not yet given what my laws would be, I find this picture presumptuous. And I am surprised that you would hint that Ebowed is a fascist after all. () OOC: The Peanut Gallery can go hush now. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on January 09, 2007, 06:22:21 PM OOC: The Peanut Gallery can go hush now. :( Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 09, 2007, 06:37:34 PM So are you saying that although a fetus is a living being, it has no rights whatsoever then? Abortion at any stage of the pregnancy ends the life of a living being. Why are you only focusing on the third trimester? This view would be a valid reason for abortion under your law - any reason is valid under your law. Yes, because the law leaves the decision up to the woman. Her choice does not need to be validated by the public as to whether it's "acceptable" or not. Your third-trimester abortion position is that of one-tenth of the population! You know, I don't really care. The bill passed this legislature, and that's what matters here. They are rare because they were restricted, and they will become considerably less rare under your law. Wait, so you think women will wait until they're seven months pregnant to get an abortion now? Your logic sucks, and it's not even backed up by the statistics. States with third trimester abortion bans have the same very low rate as those without. Now, do you honestly think that women remain pregnant as long as they can? Do you know anything about pregnancy? Why should the Pacific have banned the death penalty, if not for moral reasons? Why is that different? There are many reasons to ban the death penalty, including but not limited to moral ones. I do not necessarily see abortion as immoral; just because you do, remember that not everyone shares the same opinion. If you have a problem with the way this legislature voted, you are free to propose legislation to change it. Probably not, but it would be within the right of the government to do so. Yes, I am aware that it is within the right of a government to establish theocracy. What exactly is your point? Nothing but secularism would be allowed in the public sphere. The public sphere is open to the public and thus religion can be celebrated and displayed by anyone in public. But if a government shall not be allowed to ask for loyalty to it at all...well, that brings up some interesting questions indeed. A good government shouldn't need to ask for loyalty with a pre-written statement of support. If someone truly supports their government, they can write their own "pledge." You want the government to be able to celebrate faith, yet if the government were to celebrate outright atheism, you would consider this "intrusive secularism", despite desperate attempts to compare atheism to religion whenever possible. Where is the consistency in this? If you want the government to celebrate faith so much, why don't you write a bill to bring the caste system to the Pacific? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 09, 2007, 06:55:30 PM Adoption Bill
1. The government shall establish an Adoption Fund, which will allow persons and couples to adopt children under the age of 5 without incurring cost. 2. No person shall be barred from adopting a child on the basis of their sexual orientation. 3. Public schools are barred from requiring children to find out information about their genetics that may potentially lead to a hidden adoption status from being unveiled. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 12, 2007, 07:15:54 PM New Mexico Regional Transfer Resolution: Fails 0-8
Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules : Passes 8-0 Backup Redistricting Amendment: Passes 8-0 The Pacific has passed both constitutional methods. *SIGNS* (if I have to sign) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: WMS on January 17, 2007, 03:41:55 PM OOC: Ah, I had forgotten the politeness, courtesy, and mutual respect of your debating style in the Forum, Ebowed. Oh wait, I can't forget what isn't there... ::)
{via teleconference to the Pacific Legislature} Abortion at any stage of the pregnancy ends the life of a living being. Why are you only focusing on the third trimester? Because all arguments about viability and the like are more pointed at this point - the fetus could clearly survive. Furthermore, by this point there has been plenty of time for someone to have gotten an abortion and their lack of responsibility is rather apparent by then. While I never think that abortion is a good thing, I am showing moderation in that I am not trying to ban it entirely - there is enough of a case for personal choice that I will not interfere in the first trimester, will allow rape/incest/verified health cases in the second trimester, and always allow life of the mother cases. Not that you give a sh!t about moderation. ::) Yes, because the law leaves the decision up to the woman. Her choice does not need to be validated by the public as to whether it's "acceptable" or not. And that is a radical opinion. Are you arguing that it isn't radical? Even China and India finally enacted bans on sex-selective abortions after seeing what the results of allowing them were. You know, I don't really care. The bill passed this legislature, and that's what matters here. Yes, you and your JCP clique certainly get whatever they want, don't they? I have a bit more on that below... Wait, so you think women will wait until they're seven months pregnant to get an abortion now? Your logic sucks, and it's not even backed up by the statistics. States with third trimester abortion bans have the same very low rate as those without. Now, do you honestly think that women remain pregnant as long as they can? Do you know anything about pregnancy? If something is allowed that wasn't allowed before, then it will be used more. The statistics you cite are in an environment where there are restrictions on third trimester abortions. If there are no restrictions, do you think the rate would remain the same? There is a point of principle about giving official sanction to things as well. And if the rate of third trimester abortion bans is so damn low, then why do you insist on keeping them legal? And I'll return the question back to you, since personal attacks seem to be your preferred form of interaction. There are many reasons to ban the death penalty, including but not limited to moral ones. I do not necessarily see abortion as immoral; just because you do, remember that not everyone shares the same opinion. If you have a problem with the way this legislature voted, you are free to propose legislation to change it. And what are the non-moral reasons to ban the death penalty? "Everyone does not necessarily share the same opinion" is a stance you should have considered before proposing radical legislation, now isn't it? And your JCP clique will vote for anything you propose...likely the reason you moved to the Pacific in the first place. The hammerlock on the Pacific Legislature is assured, and you know very well no legislation of mine changing anything will pass the bloc voting in place. Yes, I am aware that it is within the right of a government to establish theocracy. What exactly is your point? Ooh, ad hominem attack, on false grounds at that. Such maturity from an Atlasian Senator. ::) How is allowing a government to put "In God We Trust" on currency establishing a theocracy? I shall be using this as an example below. How is allowing a government to express an opinion other than Secular Humanism theocratic? How is this an establishment of religion? Note that I don't prohibit atheists from putting "In No God We Trust" on currency if they happen to be in power. Note that I also allow people of faith to put "In God We Trust" back on currency if they gain power. I, however, don't prohibit atheists from ever removing "In God We Trust" by law. Note that I don't prohibit other religious groups, if they gain power, from putting "In Vishnu We Trust" on the currency if they gain power either. Do you understand what I mean about a cacophony of voices yet? The public sphere is open to the public and thus religion can be celebrated and displayed by anyone in public. That would be the private sphere, on the individual level. The public sphere covers all governmental entities. Or are your definitions different? If the public sphere doesn't include government, then where are you putting the government? A good government shouldn't need to ask for loyalty with a pre-written statement of support. If someone truly supports their government, they can write their own "pledge." You want the government to be able to celebrate faith, yet if the government were to celebrate outright atheism, you would consider this "intrusive secularism", despite desperate attempts to compare atheism to religion whenever possible. Where is the consistency in this? If you want the government to celebrate faith so much, why don't you write a bill to bring the caste system to the Pacific? Your opinion, not fact. No, if you bothered to pay attention the government can declare "Atheist Day" if it wants to. Or make the Festival of Lights a holiday. I don't forbid the government from doing these things, as long as it doesn't make law banning any of the other faiths (and yes, atheism is one of these) from ever doing the same thing. I related the stranglehold of the JCP already, and as for the claim that it would be a caste system - yet another personal attack I see - is that not what you are doing, making religion "lesser" than secularism/atheism by saying the one is not allowable in government but the other is? Given the tone of the Senator I can see that this will never end until everything in the Pacific is exactly the way his JCP clique desires. And given their resistance to the desires of the citizens of New Mexico to leave their vicious Region I can see other actions will have to be taken. Note that this is via teleconference, from Albuquerque. Per the will of the citizens of New Mexico, a doctrine of State Nullification is in effect. New Mexico reserves the right to determine for itself which Regional laws are in effect within its boundaries. Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the Reproductive Freedom Act is declared null and void. Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act is declared null and void. Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the Alcohol Freedom Act is declared null and void. Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the Religious Freedom Act is declared null and void. Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the Resolution Concerning Currency is declared null and void. In anticipation of the likely cessation of what revenues the Pacific Government provides to the State of New Mexico, the State of New Mexico hereby ceases the transmission of any and all taxes, fees, tariffs, and any other revenue to the Pacific Government. And the citizens of New Mexico once again affirm our desire to join the Midwestern Region. Given that Regions are not even specified in the new Constitution under debate, the idea that New Mexico should be forced to remain in a Region under the rules of a Constitution that is about to become obsolete is ridiculous. Regional affiliation should be voluntary, not forced. The State of New Mexico is reminding the government of the Pacific of this fact. [OOC: Ante up, pilgrims. Aces wild. ;) Game Moderator Al, certain provisions are now in effect. ;D ] OOC: The Peanut Gallery can go hush now. :( [OOC: Nothing personal. ^_^ *hughughug* You have more material to work with now. ;) Get to work on finding appropriate pictures! :P ] Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sam Spade on January 17, 2007, 04:13:29 PM Really, you should join the Southeast Region, New Mexico. The Midwest Region is full of cooties, ilikeverins and other intolerables.
After all, you were really part of Texas anyway to start with. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on January 17, 2007, 04:58:39 PM Really, you should join the Southeast Region, New Mexico. The Midwest Region is full of cooties, ilikeverins and other intolerables. After all, you were really part of Texas anyway to start with. :P We don't want any of the Southeastern region, because we're pretty sure Mike Naso has touched/governed it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 17, 2007, 05:14:59 PM Because all arguments about viability and the like are more pointed at this point - the fetus could clearly survive. Viability is a point that is always changing because of scientific advances. It also may vary widely from pregnancy to pregnancy -- it is near impossible to directly code it into law. And that is a radical opinion. What exactly is your problem, WMS? What you consider radical may be perfectly mainstream depending on the exact political beliefs of any certain location. And if the rate of third trimester abortion bans is so damn low, then why do you insist on keeping them legal? A desire to keep unnecessary statute out of the law code coupled with a strong scrutiny held towards any "moderate" legislation designed to infringe upon women's rights. And what are the non-moral reasons to ban the death penalty? Its lack of effect of a deterrent, its general lack of necessity, its prohibitive cost, the racial and socioeconomic disparity in death row inmates, the chance that an innocent person could be executed, the length of time between the crime and the execution (making possible remorse irrelevant), the arbitrary and uneven manner in which it is applied, etc. How is allowing a government to express an opinion other than Secular Humanism theocratic? The government will not be expressing a Secular Humanist opinion, because it will not be establishing an opinion at all. Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the Reproductive Freedom Act is declared null and void. Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the Physician-Assisted Suicide Legalisation Act is declared null and void. Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the Alcohol Freedom Act is declared null and void. And replaced with what? Third trimester abortions are still legal in New Mexico (regardless of whether anyone considers your nullifications valid or not). Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the Religious Freedom Act is declared null and void. Within the boundaries of New Mexico, the Resolution Concerning Currency is declared null and void. You're so weak that you have to null and void a resolution. Cool. Not that it matters, because of neither of those were ever passed by the Pacific Legislature. You could write an act declaring cheddar cheese to be really great and then nullify it in New Mexico. It would have about the same effect. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sam Spade on January 17, 2007, 05:19:05 PM Really, you should join the Southeast Region, New Mexico. The Midwest Region is full of cooties, ilikeverins and other intolerables. After all, you were really part of Texas anyway to start with. :P We don't want any of the Southeastern region, because we're pretty sure Mike Naso has touched/governed it. That reminds me: Next time I need to create an initiative expelling Mike Naso from our region permanently. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2007, 06:10:07 PM As a citizen of New Mexico, I reaffirm our state's loyalty to the Pacific Region and our Western brethren. I do request more moderation from my counterparts, however.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 17, 2007, 07:14:55 PM As a citizen of New Mexico, I reaffirm our state's loyalty to the Pacific Region and our Western brethren. I do request more moderation from my counterparts, however. You registered as a New Mexico voter after the state shut it's borders (check the time on the Wireserf thread). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Gabu on January 17, 2007, 07:19:04 PM That reminds me: Next time I need to create an initiative expelling Mike Naso from our region permanently. You might also want to sterilize the governor's mansion or maybe even demolish and rebuild it. I think Mike Naso might have slept in its bed. You registered as a New Mexico voter after the state shut it's borders (check the time on the Wireserf thread). Well, that would make him an illegal immigrant, and given that it's New Mexico, that will make him get welcomed with open arms. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 17, 2007, 07:22:55 PM Just another note; full details on what the hell is going on will be published in an Ingsoc publication pretty soon.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2007, 07:24:28 PM I meant the Mexican border. I went on holiday in Acapulco for a few days, and decided to move. No hay problemas, si?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 17, 2007, 07:39:26 PM It is actually possible that all of New Mexico's borders were closed earlier today. It's also possible that only the border with Arizona was. Ingsoc does not know the answer to this question but will do by the time the next official thread is updated.
But you'll have to wait a few hours to find out. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on January 18, 2007, 05:24:14 AM As a citizen of New Mexico, I reaffirm our state's loyalty to the Pacific Region and our Western brethren. I do request more moderation from my counterparts, however. You registered as a New Mexico voter after the state shut it's borders (check the time on the Wireserf thread). Al, welcome to the wonderful world of the PAV - permanent absentee voter. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on January 18, 2007, 02:46:06 PM Keep this bullsh**t up and I won't hesitate to write an initiative expelling you from the Pacific, WMS.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 20, 2007, 01:15:28 AM It is actually possible that all of New Mexico's borders were closed earlier today. It's also possible that only the border with Arizona was. Ingsoc does not know the answer to this question but will do by the time the next official thread is updated. But you'll have to wait a few hours to find out. ;) Or a few days ??? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: minionofmidas on January 20, 2007, 06:51:13 AM Keep this bullsh**t up and I won't hesitate to write an initiative expelling you from the Pacific, WMS. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 20, 2007, 04:43:42 PM Keep this bullsh**t up and I won't hesitate to write an initiative expelling you from the Pacific, WMS. Pacificans will not be happy unless Montana is returned in exchange for New Mexico. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 20, 2007, 10:16:34 PM It is actually possible that all of New Mexico's borders were closed earlier today. It's also possible that only the border with Arizona was. Ingsoc does not know the answer to this question but will do by the time the next official thread is updated. But you'll have to wait a few hours to find out. ;) Or a few days ??? Not been well recently. Apologies. Something should be up tomorrow. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 21, 2007, 10:41:48 PM ****Secret message to Pacific Governor's Office****
Dear noble Governor, Aluqerueees o e n hehadsofth Nw exca rbes.Curetl hdig n asVeas Nw exco ve ad ut Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: minionofmidas on January 22, 2007, 08:12:43 AM They lied to you. That's not Las Vegas NM outside your barred window. That's Las Vegas SB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas%2C_Santa_B%C3%A1rbara).
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 24, 2007, 08:42:34 PM Hi, I'd like to introduce this piece of legislation.
Resolution to resolve the conflict in the Southeastern Pacific Region 1) Whereas, a minority of New Mexicans have become militant rebels that have taken over the Pacific state of New Mexico and declared Pacific laws null and void within their borders. 2) Whereas, the New Mexican rebels have cut off all taxes and other funds from the Pacific state of New Mexico. 3) Whereas, the New Mexican rebels have illegally cut off access to the state from other parts of the Pacific. 4) Whereas, the New Mexican rebels, led by WMS, are oppressing opposition (possibly with violence) within their state. 5) Therefore, the Pacific Region recognizes the need to use whatever means necessary to return order to the state of New Mexico. 6) Therefore, the Pacific Region declares that it is in a state of war with militant rebels and will begin raising a military force to return order to the state of New Mexico and the entire Pacific Region. 7) The Pacific military shall be known as the Pacific Military Force, or PMF. The Commander-in-Chief of the PMF shall be the Governor of the Pacific. 8.) Once the conflict is resolved and the region returns to a state of peace, the PMF will be disbanded until it is once again needed. 9) The current goal of the PMF shall be to liberate the state of New Mexico from militant rebels and to bring their leader, WMS, to justice. Thank you, citizens of the Pacific! I shall open voting on this resolution as well as other pieces of legislation that have been recently introduced tomorrow. And, just a note to WMS, I think you need to remember that for a new constitution to become law, it must first not only be passed by the Senate (which, according to Senator Ebowed has a mediocre chance of passing at best) but also ratified by the Pacific Region. I find it highly unlikely that you will be able to secede from our region without the consent of the rest us. In 2004 and 2005, you seemed to think the "trading" of states was a civil and fair way to have your state transfer from one region to another. But now you resort to what, pratically seceding illegally? You're fighting the wrong people, WMS. I am more than willing to negotiate the trade of New Mexico for a Midwestern state, preferably Montana. It is ilikeverin who continues to refuse to compromise. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sam Spade on January 25, 2007, 01:02:31 AM The Southeast makes a friendly request that you take "Southeastern" out of the title of your bill.
The Southeast Region has trademarked its usage. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: ilikeverin on January 25, 2007, 04:43:15 PM I am more than willing to negotiate the trade of New Mexico for a Midwestern state, preferably Montana. Aha! You concede Montana's Midwesterness to us. Clearly, the Midwest region should have dominance over all states that have Midwestern majorities in them, which New Mexico obviously does. And Idaho and Utah too, because we say so. But, I have an idea! We shall take New Mexico. In return, we will give you Texas. How does that sound? :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on January 25, 2007, 09:12:50 PM Aha! You concede Montana's Midwesterness to us. Clearly, the Midwest region should have dominance over all states that have Midwestern majorities in them, which New Mexico obviously does. And Idaho and Utah too, because we say so. Uh, we concede that Montana is legally part of the Midwest since, unlike you, we actually follow the law. We don't concede New Mexico for the same reason. But, I have an idea! We shall take New Mexico. In return, we will give you Texas. How does that sound? :) no Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 25, 2007, 11:22:07 PM I'm opening voting on the following. Voting closes in exactly one week. Please vote aye or nay.
Religious Freedom Act 1. The Pledge of Allegiance is abolished. 2. There shall be no official statement of patriotism, whether recitation is voluntary or involuntary, to be legislated by the Pacific government. 3. All tax benefits and exemptions heralded towards churches and religious institutions are hereby abolished. Resolution Concerning Currency 1. It is the position of the people of the Pacific region that no currency should designate belief or disbelief in a higher power. Pacific Drug Free Zone Act 1. The Pacific Region shall hereby be designated as a Drug Free Zone. 2. The usage of all recreational drugs is legalised. 3. The sale of all recreational drugs is legalised. 4. Crimes commmitted whilst under the influence of recreational drugs shall be prosecuted as crimes committed whilst in any other mental state. Adoption Bill 1. The government shall establish an Adoption Fund, which will allow persons and couples to adopt children under the age of 5 without incurring cost. 2. No person shall be barred from adopting a child on the basis of their sexual orientation. 3. Public schools are barred from requiring children to find out information about their genetics that may potentially lead to a hidden adoption status from being unveiled. Resolution to resolve the conflict in the Southeastern Pacific Region 1) Whereas, a minority of New Mexicans have become militant rebels that have taken over the Pacific state of New Mexico and declared Pacific laws null and void within their borders. 2) Whereas, the New Mexican rebels have cut off all taxes and other funds from the Pacific state of New Mexico. 3) Whereas, the New Mexican rebels have illegally cut off access to the state from other parts of the Pacific. 4) Whereas, the New Mexican rebels, led by WMS, are oppressing opposition (possibly with violence) within their state. 5) Therefore, the Pacific Region recognizes the need to use whatever means necessary to return order to the state of New Mexico. 6) Therefore, the Pacific Region declares that it is in a state of war with militant rebels and will begin raising a military force to return order to the state of New Mexico and the entire Pacific Region. 7) The Pacific military shall be known as the Pacific Military Force, or PMF. The Commander-in-Chief of the PMF shall be the Governor of the Pacific. 8.) Once the conflict is resolved and the region returns to a state of peace, the PMF will be disbanded until it is once again needed. 9) The current goal of the PMF shall be to liberate the state of New Mexico from militant rebels and to bring their leader, WMS, to justice. Ballot: Vote aye or nay Religious Freedom Act: Resolution Concerning Currency: Pacific Drug Free Zone Act: Adoption Bill: Resolution to resolve the conflict in the Southeastern Pacific Region: Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 25, 2007, 11:23:47 PM Religious Freedom Act: Aye
Resolution Concerning Currency: Aye Pacific Drug Free Zone Act: Nay Adoption Bill: Aye Resolution to resolve the conflict in the Southeastern Pacific Region: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 26, 2007, 06:44:34 AM ***Secret message to the Governor***
TISA: A;A;N;A;- Sga diqbar id sga qazak rbol kaucaq, VLR, guta sujam Kur Tafur. Gecemf vesg u rlukk fqion id xioq zquta umc kuxuk dakkiv Nubedebumr uvuesemf doqsgaq emrobseimr, Gofgamsi. Cim's diqfas or, Fitaqmiq. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on January 26, 2007, 05:15:50 PM Religious Freedom Act: Aye
Resolution Concerning Currency: Aye Pacific Drug Free Zone Act: Nay Adoption Bill: Aye Resolution to resolve the conflict in the Southeastern Pacific Region: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Dowager Mod on January 26, 2007, 08:34:06 PM Religious Freedom Act: Aye
Resolution Concerning Currency: Aye Pacific Drug Free Zone Act: Nay Adoption Bill: Aye Resolution to resolve the conflict in the Southeastern Pacific Region: Abstain Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on January 27, 2007, 03:07:47 AM Religious Freedom Act: Aye.
Resolution Concerning Currency: Aye. Pacific Drug Free Zone Act: Nay. Adoption Bill: Aye. Resolution to resolve the conflict in the Southeastern Pacific Region: Aye. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on January 27, 2007, 04:05:43 AM Religious Freedom Act: Aye
Resolution Concerning Currency: Aye Pacific Drug Free Zone Act: Nay Adoption Bill: Aye Resolution to resolve the conflict in the Southeastern Pacific Region: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on January 29, 2007, 07:40:30 AM *Urgent message to the Governor of the Pacific*
ACEGIKMOQSUWY Goeo, e ees ae UCEA WEAOS! I ae o see em esoay, u is sue o cick sai. Ayway, we'e a wa. Isucios? ugeo. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 29, 2007, 09:56:55 PM Religious Freedom Act: Aye
Resolution Concerning Currency: Aye Pacific Drug Free Zone Act: Nay Adoption Bill: Aye Resolution to resolve the conflict in the Southeastern Pacific Region: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 01, 2007, 11:56:39 PM The Religious Freedom Act passes with 7 ayes and 0 nays.
X Governor Jesus The Resolution Concerning Currency passes with 7 ayes and 0 nays. X Governor Jesus The Pacific Drug Free Zone Act fails with 0 ayes and 7 nays. X Governor Jesus The Adoption Bill passes with 7 ayes and 0 nays. X Governor Jesus The Resolution to resolve the conflict in the Southeastern Pacific Region passes with 5 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 abstains. X Governor Jesus Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 02, 2007, 03:40:53 AM With the basic foundations of our military in place, our intelligence sources have shown large New Mexican rebel groupings on all interstate entrances, blocking off access to the rest of the region.
I'm announcing that Pacific Military Force bomber jets are currently on their way from Los Angeles to the border between Arizona and New Mexico at Interstate 40 with orders to launch an airstrike on the rebel groupings. *waits for Al* Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2007, 11:35:06 AM *waits for Al* You sure about this? Alright... if you insist... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on February 09, 2007, 06:26:08 PM bump
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 16, 2007, 06:57:45 PM I'm appointing Rob to the empty Pacific seat in the Sneate to fill the remainder of Everett's term.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: TheWildCard on March 04, 2007, 12:14:59 PM I would like to propose a constitutional amendment to the constitution.
Where amendment 3 reads 1. Whereas the Pacific should follow the lead of the rest of the nation by re-adjusting the time that its elections begin. 2. Therefore elections shall begin at 9:00 PM Pacific Standard time on the penultimate Thursday in April and August and on the second Thursday in December and not midnight on Fridays by changing these details in Article 1: Section 2. The 5th Amendment shall change this to 1. In trying to find a progressive solution to the problem of inactivity in Atlasia the Pacific shall now hold elections more freqeuntly. 2. Elections shall begin at 9:00 PM Pacific Standard time on the penultimate Thursday in October, Febuary, April, June and August and on the second Thursday in December by changing these details in Article 1: Section 2. x TheWildCard Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 06, 2007, 06:42:22 PM We usually have trouble just filling up Governor and Lt. Governor because of a lack of candidates.... In August I became Governor unchallenged and had trouble finding somebody to be Lt. Governor!
How would more frequent elections help with this problem? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 19, 2007, 09:41:18 PM Hi,
I would like to announce that I will be seeking re-election next month. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 22, 2007, 04:08:32 AM I'm appointing Rob to the vacant Pacific senate seat.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Јas on March 26, 2007, 11:51:22 AM I'm appointing Rob to the vacant Pacific senate seat. Sorry to intrude, but does Rob know/care you've appointed him to the seat? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Јas on March 27, 2007, 08:47:41 AM I'm appointing Rob to the vacant Pacific senate seat. Sorry to intrude, but does Rob know/care you've appointed him to the seat? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 27, 2007, 12:23:13 PM He's aware. I'll remind him when I see him on AIM.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 07, 2007, 03:58:01 AM Legalization of Prostitution Bill
Section 1: Findings 1. The criminalization of consensual sex in which money is paid for participation in the sex act is a violation of civil liberties. 2. The regulation of legalized brothels will allow for an increase in public safety by mandating tests and protections against sexually transmitted infections. Section 2: Legalization of Prostitution 1. No law shall exist criminalizing the act of paying for participation in a sex act. Section 3: Limitations 1. Local governments shall have the right to regulate the prostitution industry, including for health and safety purposes. Such regulations may include, but are not limited to: - Requiring use of a registered location while engaging in business (i.e. forbidding 'street work'); - Requiring mandatory drug and venereal disease tests; - Mandating use of contraceptive devices during business activities; 2. Where no local regulations exist as per Clause 2, the following regulations shall be followed: - All prostitutes shall be required to utilize condoms during vaginal or anal intercourse. - Prostitutes shall be required to obtain testing for venereal diseases, including HIV, once a month. If a venereal disease is detected, the prostitute is forbidden from seeing further customers, until and unless the disease is no longer present or is in a noncommunicable stage. 3. The government shall have the right to tax the services given by the prostitution industry in applicable areas. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on May 07, 2007, 12:31:54 AM Hello, I would like to offer this amendment. It resolves several potential problems I see possibly popping up in the future, like an election tie (our consitution does not address this). It also simplifies the process of filling a vacant Lt. Governor position. Currently an election is required to fill the seat, although every time it has needed to be filled there has only been one candidate on the ballot, making the election relatively pointless.
Amendment regarding elections Section 1 1. Section 3:2 of Article I shall be amended to read "If the office of Lieutenant Governor becomes vacant, the Governor shall appoint a replacement as soon as possible. The Governor may choose to hold an election to fill the position should multiple candidates arise, but is not required to do so. If the Governor does hold an election, it should take place the following weekend and take place during standard election hours." Section 2 1. Should an election end in a tie with no way to determine a winner based on preferences, the Governor shall pick a winner among the top candidates (those who have tied). 2. Should a tie occur when there is no Governor or Lt. Governor, another election shall be held the following weekend until a winner is determined Governor Jesus to get this to a vote. Governor Jesus to get Porce's bill to a vote. I'll open both at least 24 hours after this post. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on May 08, 2007, 02:12:02 AM Voting is open on the following (here is the ballot):
Amendment regarding elections ___ Legalization of Prostitution Bill ___ My vote: Amendment regarding elections Aye Legalization of Prostitution Bill Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on May 08, 2007, 05:04:37 AM An "aye" so nice, I'm voting it twice.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Dowager Mod on May 08, 2007, 04:42:14 PM Nay
Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on May 09, 2007, 03:39:06 AM I'm changing my vote to nay on the amendment. I will change it to something along the lines of another election being held in the case of a tie, since I don't want to be a fascist like Verin. ;)
How about... Section 1 1. Section 3:2 of Article I shall be amended to read "If the office of Lieutenant Governor becomes vacant, an election shall be held the first Friday following the vacancy during standard election hours. The winner shall take office immediately. If no candidates declare within this time, then the Governor may proceed to find a person to appoint. If an appointed person accepts the position then they shall take office immediately." Section 2 1. Should an election end in a tie with no way to determine a winner based on preferences, another election shall be held among the tying candidates the following weekend during standard election hours. 2. Should a tie occur a second time, another election shall be held the following weekend with neither of the candidates from the previous week running again. 3. The current Governor or Lt. Governor shall serve until a winner is determined. 4. When a winner is finally determined under these extraordinary circumstances, they shall take office immediately. X Governor Jesus Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 09, 2007, 03:48:13 AM Amendment regarding elections Nay
Legalization of Prostitution Bill Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on May 15, 2007, 03:03:04 PM Amendment regarding elections fails with 1 aye and 3 nays
Legalization of Prostitution Bill passes with 3 ayes and 1 nay We are now voting on the following amendment: Amendment regarding special elections Section 1 1. Section 3:2 of Article I shall be amended to read "If the office of Lieutenant Governor becomes vacant, an election shall be held the first Friday following the vacancy during standard election hours. The winner shall take office immediately. If no candidates declare within this time, then the Governor may proceed to find a person to appoint. If an appointed person accepts the position then they shall take office immediately." Section 2 1. Should an election end in a tie with no way to determine a winner based on preferences, another election shall be held among the tying candidates the following weekend during standard election hours. 2. Should a tie occur a second time, another election shall be held the following weekend with neither of the candidates from the previous week running again. 3. The current Governor or Lt. Governor shall serve until a winner is determined. 4. When a winner is finally determined under these extraordinary circumstances, they shall take office immediately. Please vote aye or nay. I vote aye. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 15, 2007, 09:31:32 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Rob on May 19, 2007, 11:48:43 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on May 24, 2007, 04:17:48 PM The amendment passed 3-0
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: King on May 26, 2007, 11:39:41 AM The state of Washington took over the Pacific while I was gone...crazy...what happened to California selling you guys as slaves?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: King on July 11, 2007, 06:42:41 PM Automatic Teller Machine Fees Act 1. Any bank operating within the Pacific Region shall be prohibited from fining persons using automatic teller machines ('ATMs') for using a machine not associated or approved for use by the user's bank. 2. Any ATM within the Pacific Region run by a bank from any other region may not fine persons for the same reason described in Section 1. I guess I support this thing. However, Section 2 isn't really necessary as even if it's a branch of a non-Pacific bank, it is still an ATM "operating within the Pacific Region." I motion for an amendment to remove Section 2--or for Porce to edit it out. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 03, 2007, 05:08:02 AM Automatic Teller Machine Fees Bill
1. Any bank operating within the Pacific Region shall be prohibited from fining persons using automatic teller machines ('ATMs') for using a machine not associated or approved for use by the user's bank. Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill 1. The Pacific Region pledges $10 million to embryonic stem cell research grants effective FY 2008. 2. All regional restrictions on cloning and embyronic stem cell research are repealed. AIDS Prevention Bill 1. The Pacific Government pledges $10 million towards condom distribution programs effective FY 2008. 2. The Pacific Government pledges $10 million towards needle exchange programs effective FY 2008. 3. The sale of hypodermic needles over-the-counter, without a prescription, is hereby legalized. Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific on Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling 1. It is the sense of the Pacific Region that oil drilling on the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge should be ended, because it: a.) Degrades the environment; b.) Discourages the use of alternative energy sources. 2. The people of the Pacific call on the federal Senate to overturn F.L. 6-21, which authorized the drilling on ANWR. Pacific Estate Tax Bill 1. The Pacific Region estate tax outlined below becomes effective FY 2008. 2. Each portion of the value of the estate shall be taxed at the following rates, with each rate corresponding to the tax rate on only the portion of the estate that falls in the appointed range: a) $0-$2,000,000 – 0% b) $2,000,001-$4,000,000 – 3% c) $4,000,001-$9,000,000 – 5% d) $9,000,001-$15,500,000 – 7.5% e) $15,500,001-$22,000,000 – 10% f) $22,000,001-$45,000,000 – 12.5% g) $45,000,001-$75,000,000 – 15% h) $75,000,001-$100,000,000 – 18.5% i) $100,000,001 and above – 25% j) Farmers' non-residential property shall be taxed at 50% the normal tax rate. Science in the Classrooms Bill Section 1: Human Sexuality No funds from the Pacific government shall go towards any sex education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as based on scientific evidence: 1.) the trait of homosexuality or bisexuality is an entirely conscious choice and/or is strange or unnatural. 2.) the participation in homosexual sex acts is an unnatural act observed only in humans. 3.) the proper use of contraceptive devices including but not limited to condoms is grossly ineffective in preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections. 4.) engaging in sexual activity before marriage with proper precautions is dangerous. 5.) males and females should limit themselves to careers which have historically been associated with masculine and feminine roles, respectively. 6.) the surgical or medical termination of a pregnancy causes, or is in any way linked to, the development of breast cancer. 7.) pregnancy begins at any point before the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus. Section 2: Origins No funds from the Pacific government shall go towards any scientific education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as based on scientific evidence: 1.) the status of biological evolution as a scientific theory is somehow different or set apart from that of other scientific theories such as gravity or relativity. 2.) fossil evidence for biological macroevolution is largely inaccurate or misinterpreted by mainstream scientists, or presents a picture that contradicts with biological evolutionary theory. 3.) radioactive carbon dating is always inaccurate or scientifically unreliable. 4.) the age of the earth is less than ten thousand years. 5.) the origins of the universe and of life on earth are scientifically explained by religious texts or creeds. 6.) the complexity of certain types of life on earth are of such a magnitude that they present valid evidence for that of a higher power or "intelligent designer." 7.) creation theories are testable by the scientific method. 8.) the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts the Big Bang. Section 3: Cannabis No Pacific funds shall be directed toward any drug prevention program that disseminates any of the following beliefs, and/or presents them as being established on scientific evidence. 1. Marijuana use fails to alleviate symptoms associated with terminal illness (e.g. cancer). 2. Recreational use of marijuana invariably leads to use of "hard" drugs (the so-called "gateway effect"). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Rob on August 03, 2007, 11:57:08 PM Automatic Teller Machine Fees Bill
x Rob Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill x Rob AIDS Prevention Bill x Rob Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific on Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling x Rob Pacific Estate Tax Bill x Rob Science in the Classrooms Bill x Rob Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: King on August 04, 2007, 08:07:05 PM Automatic Teller Machine Fees Bill x Rob Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill x Rob AIDS Prevention Bill x Rob Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific on Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling x Rob Pacific Estate Tax Bill x Rob Science in the Classrooms Bill x Rob What are you signing? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 05, 2007, 03:53:34 AM What are you signing? bills need 3 signatures or the governor's signature to advance to the ballot Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: King on August 05, 2007, 12:59:23 PM What are you signing? bills need 3 signatures or the governor's signature to advance to the ballot Oh. I'll sign all of them, too. Automatic Teller Machine Fees Bill x King Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill x King AIDS Prevention Bill x King Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific on Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling x King Pacific Estate Tax Bill x King Science in the Classrooms Bill x King Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Dowager Mod on August 05, 2007, 09:27:46 PM Automatic Teller Machine Fees Bill
x TexasGurl Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill x TexasGurl AIDS Prevention Bill x TexasGurl Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific on Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling x TexasGurl Pacific Estate Tax Bill x TexasGurl Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 06, 2007, 02:08:13 AM Automatic Teller Machine Fees Bill
x Jesus Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill x Jesus AIDS Prevention Bill x Jesus Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific on Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling x Jesus Pacific Estate Tax Bill x Jesus Science in the Classrooms Bill x Jesus Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 07, 2007, 01:57:03 PM We're now voting on the following:
Automatic Teller Machine Fees Bill 1. Any bank operating within the Pacific Region shall be prohibited from fining persons using automatic teller machines ('ATMs') for using a machine not associated or approved for use by the user's bank. Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill 1. The Pacific Region pledges $10 million to embryonic stem cell research grants effective FY 2008. 2. All regional restrictions on cloning and embyronic stem cell research are repealed. AIDS Prevention Bill 1. The Pacific Government pledges $10 million towards condom distribution programs effective FY 2008. 2. The Pacific Government pledges $10 million towards needle exchange programs effective FY 2008. 3. The sale of hypodermic needles over-the-counter, without a prescription, is hereby legalized. Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific on Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling 1. It is the sense of the Pacific Region that oil drilling on the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge should be ended, because it: a.) Degrades the environment; b.) Discourages the use of alternative energy sources. 2. The people of the Pacific call on the federal Senate to overturn F.L. 6-21, which authorized the drilling on ANWR. Pacific Estate Tax Bill 1. The Pacific Region estate tax outlined below becomes effective FY 2008. 2. Each portion of the value of the estate shall be taxed at the following rates, with each rate corresponding to the tax rate on only the portion of the estate that falls in the appointed range: a) $0-$2,000,000 – 0% b) $2,000,001-$4,000,000 – 3% c) $4,000,001-$9,000,000 – 5% d) $9,000,001-$15,500,000 – 7.5% e) $15,500,001-$22,000,000 – 10% f) $22,000,001-$45,000,000 – 12.5% g) $45,000,001-$75,000,000 – 15% h) $75,000,001-$100,000,000 – 18.5% i) $100,000,001 and above – 25% j) Farmers' non-residential property shall be taxed at 50% the normal tax rate. Science in the Classrooms Bill Section 1: Human Sexuality No funds from the Pacific government shall go towards any sex education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as based on scientific evidence: 1.) the trait of homosexuality or bisexuality is an entirely conscious choice and/or is strange or unnatural. 2.) the participation in homosexual sex acts is an unnatural act observed only in humans. 3.) the proper use of contraceptive devices including but not limited to condoms is grossly ineffective in preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections. 4.) engaging in sexual activity before marriage with proper precautions is dangerous. 5.) males and females should limit themselves to careers which have historically been associated with masculine and feminine roles, respectively. 6.) the surgical or medical termination of a pregnancy causes, or is in any way linked to, the development of breast cancer. 7.) pregnancy begins at any point before the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus. Section 2: Origins No funds from the Pacific government shall go towards any scientific education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as based on scientific evidence: 1.) the status of biological evolution as a scientific theory is somehow different or set apart from that of other scientific theories such as gravity or relativity. 2.) fossil evidence for biological macroevolution is largely inaccurate or misinterpreted by mainstream scientists, or presents a picture that contradicts with biological evolutionary theory. 3.) radioactive carbon dating is always inaccurate or scientifically unreliable. 4.) the age of the earth is less than ten thousand years. 5.) the origins of the universe and of life on earth are scientifically explained by religious texts or creeds. 6.) the complexity of certain types of life on earth are of such a magnitude that they present valid evidence for that of a higher power or "intelligent designer." 7.) creation theories are testable by the scientific method. 8.) the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts the Big Bang. Section 3: Cannabis No Pacific funds shall be directed toward any drug prevention program that disseminates any of the following beliefs, and/or presents them as being established on scientific evidence. 1. Marijuana use fails to alleviate symptoms associated with terminal illness (e.g. cancer). 2. Recreational use of marijuana invariably leads to use of "hard" drugs (the so-called "gateway effect"). Voting closes one week from the original posting time of this post. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Dowager Mod on August 07, 2007, 02:06:52 PM Aye
Aye Aye Aye Aye Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: King on August 07, 2007, 03:54:35 PM Automatic Teller Machine Fees Bill
Aye (a little too regulatory for my tastes, but really shouldn't hurt our economy) Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill Nay (too much money and would be better served through a federal program) AIDS Prevention Bill Nay (same reasoning as Embryonic Stem Cell) Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific on Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling Aye (although I don't agree with the part about how it discourages alternative energy sources) Pacific Estate Tax Bill Aye (Pacific should make a fortune considering how many the rich and classy cities the are in this region) Science in the Classrooms Bill Aye (sounds good to me) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 08, 2007, 12:17:30 AM Automatic Teller Machine Fees Bill: Aye
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill: Aye AIDS Prevention Bill: Aye Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific on Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling: Aye Pacific Estate Tax Bill: Aye Science in the Classrooms Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Rob on August 08, 2007, 03:39:39 AM Aye to all
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 09, 2007, 03:33:32 AM Automatic Teller Machine Fees Bill: Aye
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill: Aye AIDS Prevention Bill: Aye Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific on Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling: Aye Pacific Estate Tax Bill: Aye Science in the Classrooms Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 09, 2007, 04:02:55 AM Minimum Wage Raise Bill
1. The minimum wage shall be raised by $0.50, to $7.50, effective two months after the passage of this act. Racial Profiling Bill 1. No branch of law enforcement under Pacific jurisdiction shall be permitted to use the practice of racial profiling in attempting to catch or determine suspects. 2. "Racial profiling" is defined as the use of selecting someone for targeting solely on the basis of their skin color, race, language, or nationality being perceived as more likely to commit a crime than someone of a different skin color, race, language, or nationality. LSD Legalization Bill 1. The possession and consumption of LSD (also known as lysergic acid diethylamide, LSD-25, or "acid"), a non-addictive semisynthetic psychedelic drug, shall be lawful for anyone who is 18 years or older. 2. This act shall not be interpreted as to decriminalize driving under the influence of LSD. Public Services Bill 1. No person in the Pacific Region shall be denied access to public services, including public education, on the basis of immigration status. Environmental Standards Bill 1. Any class of automobile listed below produced or sold within the Pacific Region must adhere to the following CAFE standards: a. Cars: 40 mpg by 2009, 50 mpg by 2011, 60 mpg by 2014 b. Light Trucks: 30 mpg by 2009, 40 mpg by 2011, 46 mpg by 2014 c. SUV: A standard of 26 mpg is instituted effective 2009, 40 mpg by 2011, 52 mpg by 2014 Anti-Discrimination Bill 1. All anti-discrimination laws applicable within the Pacific Region relating to housing, employment, and public accomodations shall be amended to also include sexual orientation as an illegal basis on which to discriminate. Repeal of the Three-Strikes Act 1. The Three-Strikes Act is repealed. Darfur Divestment Bill 1. All companies operating within the Pacific Region shall divest all funds that are invested in Sudan by September 15, 2007. 2. Any company that does not divest from Sudan by the above date shall face a fine of $20,000 for every employee each day that it is still invested in Sudan. 3. Sections 1 and 2 of this bill will expire on January 1, 2009. Pacific Regional Holidays Bill 1. January 22 shall henceforth be recognized as Women's Rights Day, an official holiday. 2. February 24 shall henceforth be recognized as Immigration Appreciation Day, an official holiday. 3. May 17 shall henceforth be recognized as LGBT Rights Day, an official holiday. 4. June 26 shall henceforth be recognized as Torture Victims Support Day, an official holiday. 5. July 2 shall henceforth be recognized as Civil Rights Day, an official holiday. 6. In consistency with federal law 12-6, Columbus Day, recognized on the second Monday of every October, is hereby abolished as an official holiday. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on August 09, 2007, 07:42:04 AM ATM Fees Bill: Nay-it's a bank's right to charge for their efforts if someone uses a competitor's service that still relies on their network and expertise.
ESCR Bill: Aye AIDS Prevention Bill: Abstain-would be an easy Aye if not for section three. Section three is not enough for a 'Nay', but I'd like an impact study before approving this bill. AIDS Prevention is a worthy goal, however, and I support the Legislature's willingness to consider the issue. Resolution re: Alaska: I support Estate Tax Bill: Aye-but again, I have concerns, especially for the farmers. 50% is pretty bloody hefty, especially for struggling farmers in some parts of our region. I propose an amendment to section j), changing the term '50%' to '25%'. I certainly see no reason for it to be higher than the tax on property over $1m. Science in the Classroom Bill: Aye-The small concerns I have over section 3 are not enough to replace the positive sentiment I hold towards section 1, which is important and unproblematic. Minimum Wage Increase Bill: Abstain-I support an increase in the minimum wage, but this arbitary figure without any evidence to support its effectiveness or consequences-positive and negative-is unacceptable. I would suggest an alternate bill, which mandates that the minimum wage in the Pacific region will increase according to inflation in the cost of living from a specific point-the starting point could be the current $7.00 or the proposed $7.50, or somewhere in between. Racial Profiling Bill: Abstain-My civil libertarian says racial profiling is disgraceful. My 'well the statistics show...' side says it has a reason to exist. The first is heftier on my mind, but the concerns of the latter point do not allow me to support this measure as it stands. LSD Legalisation Bill: Abstain-The health consequences, especially mental health, can be significant. Again, my civil libertarian side plays a part, saying people should be able to make their own choice. I'd also like clarification on the second part. Public Services Bill: Aye Environmental Standards Bill: Aye-This is a significant bill that will implement some big changes. Whilst I am worried about the economic effect on other regions of Atlasia, it is in the Pacific's best interest to pass this bill. Anti-Discrimination Bill: Nay-'Sexual Orientation' can include an adult's preference for young children. Whilst this is not necessarily a concern if they do not act upon their sexual desires nor support any industry relation to the sexual exploitation of children, if there are legal proofs of a person acting in either of these areas a vendor or landlord should have the right to refuse to sell/rent their property to an individual. I'd like to support this bill for many other reasons, but it needs much more detail then that currently present for me to do so. Repeal of the Three Strikes Act: Aye-I'd also like to introduce another bill: Review of Sentences Under Three-Strikes Law Bill 1) All sentences handed down due to the three-strikes law will be reviewed by the a Justice Reform Council to be formed by appointees of the Pacific Government and funded by a government provision of $3.5m per annum 2) If a sentence is found to be handed down purely because of the demands of the three-strikes law, independent of the sentencing necessary for the third crime, the sentence will be removed and compensation paid up to the amount $5,000. (BTW, since we use Arizona law, does the three-strikes law actually exist in the Pacific?) Darfur Divestment Bill: Nay-Yeah, that's REALLY going to improve the situation for the Sudanese people. Their government might be abysmal, but aiding in the destruction of the Sudanese economy is not something I can support. Let's find other, better ways to end the crisis in Darfur and throughout the region. Pacific Regions Holiday Bill: Abstain-5 extra official holidays? If these are days in which schools are closed, government services do not open and businesses are forced to pay extra money to employees, I will vote nay. If they are a worthy recognition of the importance of the minority groups represented in the bill, I will vote aye. Also, 6. should be a seperate bill. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 18, 2007, 02:00:22 AM The results:
Automatic Teller Machine Fees Bill: 5 Aye, 1 Nay X Governor Jesus Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill: 5 Aye, 1 Nay X Governor Jesus AIDS Prevention Bill: 4 Aye, 1 Nay, 1 Abstain X Governor Jesus Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific on Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling: 6 Aye X Governor Jesus Pacific Estate Tax Bill: 6 Aye X Governor Jesus Science in the Classrooms Bill: 5 Aye, 1 Nay X Governor Jesus And now I shall proceed to sign all of Ebowed's proposals (consider this as me re-proposing and signing them if you must!) so we may begin voting on them soon (at least 24 hours after this post). Hopefully Ebowed doesn't get angry at me, though I'm not sure I support all of them, particularly the one regarding holidays. But a vote can't hurt! Minimum Wage Raise Bill X Governor Jesus Racial Profiling Bill X Governor Jesus LSD Legalization Bill X Governor Jesus Public Services Bill X Governor Jesus Environmental Standards Bill X Governor Jesus Anti-Discrimination Bill X Governor Jesus Repeal of the Three-Strikes Act X Governor Jesus Darfur Divestment Bill X Governor Jesus Pacific Regional Holidays Bill X Governor Jesus Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 20, 2007, 01:59:01 PM Voting on the following will be open for exactly one week. Please vote aye or nay.
Minimum Wage Raise Bill 1. The minimum wage shall be raised by $0.50, to $7.50, effective two months after the passage of this act. Racial Profiling Bill 1. No branch of law enforcement under Pacific jurisdiction shall be permitted to use the practice of racial profiling in attempting to catch or determine suspects. 2. "Racial profiling" is defined as the use of selecting someone for targeting solely on the basis of their skin color, race, language, or nationality being perceived as more likely to commit a crime than someone of a different skin color, race, language, or nationality. LSD Legalization Bill 1. The possession and consumption of LSD (also known as lysergic acid diethylamide, LSD-25, or "acid"), a non-addictive semisynthetic psychedelic drug, shall be lawful for anyone who is 18 years or older. 2. This act shall not be interpreted as to decriminalize driving under the influence of LSD. Public Services Bill 1. No person in the Pacific Region shall be denied access to public services, including public education, on the basis of immigration status. Environmental Standards Bill 1. Any class of automobile listed below produced or sold within the Pacific Region must adhere to the following CAFE standards: a. Cars: 40 mpg by 2009, 50 mpg by 2011, 60 mpg by 2014 b. Light Trucks: 30 mpg by 2009, 40 mpg by 2011, 46 mpg by 2014 c. SUV: A standard of 26 mpg is instituted effective 2009, 40 mpg by 2011, 52 mpg by 2014 Anti-Discrimination Bill 1. All anti-discrimination laws applicable within the Pacific Region relating to housing, employment, and public accomodations shall be amended to also include sexual orientation as an illegal basis on which to discriminate. Repeal of the Three-Strikes Act 1. The Three-Strikes Act is repealed. Darfur Divestment Bill 1. All companies operating within the Pacific Region shall divest all funds that are invested in Sudan by September 15, 2007. 2. Any company that does not divest from Sudan by the above date shall face a fine of $20,000 for every employee each day that it is still invested in Sudan. 3. Sections 1 and 2 of this bill will expire on January 1, 2009. Pacific Regional Holidays Bill 1. January 22 shall henceforth be recognized as Women's Rights Day, an official holiday. 2. February 24 shall henceforth be recognized as Immigration Appreciation Day, an official holiday. 3. May 17 shall henceforth be recognized as LGBT Rights Day, an official holiday. 4. June 26 shall henceforth be recognized as Torture Victims Support Day, an official holiday. 5. July 2 shall henceforth be recognized as Civil Rights Day, an official holiday. 6. In consistency with federal law 12-6, Columbus Day, recognized on the second Monday of every October, is hereby abolished as an official holiday. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: King on August 20, 2007, 02:21:08 PM I abstain on all.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 20, 2007, 05:59:10 PM Minimum Wage Raise Bill: Aye
Racial Profiling Bill: Aye LSD Legalization Bill: Aye Public Services Bill: Aye Environmental Standards Bill: Aye Anti-Discrimination Bill: Aye Repeal of the Three-Strikes Act: Aye Darfur Divestment Bill: Aye Pacific Regional Holidays Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on August 20, 2007, 06:01:59 PM Minimum Wage Raise Bill 1. The minimum wage shall be raised by $0.50, to $7.50, effective two months after the passage of this act. Aye Racial Profiling Bill 1. No branch of law enforcement under Pacific jurisdiction shall be permitted to use the practice of racial profiling in attempting to catch or determine suspects. 2. "Racial profiling" is defined as the use of selecting someone for targeting solely on the basis of their skin color, race, language, or nationality being perceived as more likely to commit a crime than someone of a different skin color, race, language, or nationality. Aye LSD Legalization Bill 1. The possession and consumption of LSD (also known as lysergic acid diethylamide, LSD-25, or "acid"), a non-addictive semisynthetic psychedelic drug, shall be lawful for anyone who is 18 years or older. 2. This act shall not be interpreted as to decriminalize driving under the influence of LSD. Aye Public Services Bill 1. No person in the Pacific Region shall be denied access to public services, including public education, on the basis of immigration status. Nay Environmental Standards Bill 1. Any class of automobile listed below produced or sold within the Pacific Region must adhere to the following CAFE standards: a. Cars: 40 mpg by 2009, 50 mpg by 2011, 60 mpg by 2014 b. Light Trucks: 30 mpg by 2009, 40 mpg by 2011, 46 mpg by 2014 c. SUV: A standard of 26 mpg is instituted effective 2009, 40 mpg by 2011, 52 mpg by 2014 I do not cast a vote on this issue (as in, pure abstain - not the type that counts as "no") Anti-Discrimination Bill 1. All anti-discrimination laws applicable within the Pacific Region relating to housing, employment, and public accomodations shall be amended to also include sexual orientation as an illegal basis on which to discriminate. Aye Repeal of the Three-Strikes Act 1. The Three-Strikes Act is repealed. Aye Darfur Divestment Bill 1. All companies operating within the Pacific Region shall divest all funds that are invested in Sudan by September 15, 2007. 2. Any company that does not divest from Sudan by the above date shall face a fine of $20,000 for every employee each day that it is still invested in Sudan. 3. Sections 1 and 2 of this bill will expire on January 1, 2009. Abstain as previous Pacific Regional Holidays Bill 1. January 22 shall henceforth be recognized as Women's Rights Day, an official holiday. 2. February 24 shall henceforth be recognized as Immigration Appreciation Day, an official holiday. 3. May 17 shall henceforth be recognized as LGBT Rights Day, an official holiday. 4. June 26 shall henceforth be recognized as Torture Victims Support Day, an official holiday. 5. July 2 shall henceforth be recognized as Civil Rights Day, an official holiday. 6. In consistency with federal law 12-6, Columbus Day, recognized on the second Monday of every October, is hereby abolished as an official holiday. Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Rob on August 21, 2007, 12:36:42 AM Aye to all
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on August 21, 2007, 05:36:55 AM Abstain
Abstain Abstain Aye Aye Nay Aye-also, why was my proposal not submitted? Nay Abstain Also, a little discussion on the points I made would've been great. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 21, 2007, 06:02:58 AM Hugh, sexual orientation does not refer to pedophiles. There is legislative precedent within Atlasian law specifically defining 'orientation' as not including attraction to children.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 21, 2007, 01:33:02 PM Abstain Abstain Abstain Aye Aye Nay Aye-also, why was my proposal not submitted? Nay Abstain Also, a little discussion on the points I made would've been great. Sorry, I seemed to have overlooked your proposal. I'll re-introduce/sign it after the current voting. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Dowager Mod on August 21, 2007, 04:02:06 PM Minimum Wage Raise Bill
Aye Racial Profiling Bill Aye LSD Legalization Bill NAY Public Services Bill Aye Environmental Standards Bill Aye Anti-Discrimination Bill Aye Repeal of the Three-Strikes Act Nay Darfur Divestment Bill Nay Pacific Regional Holidays Bill Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 22, 2007, 05:11:04 AM Light Bulbs Bill
1. The production and/or sale of incandescant light bulbs will be illegal effective July 1, 2009. 2. Persons wishing to switch from incandescant light bulbs to more energy-effecient light bulbs will be reimbursed in whole for all related expenses effective immediately upon the passage of this act into law until January 1, 2012. Universal Health Care Bill of 2007 1. The Pacific Region hereby establishes a single-payer universal health care program. 2. This program will be open towards any resident or citizen of the Pacific Region regardless of previous health conditions, disability, citizenship status, criminal record, or economic status. No person will be required to pay for access to health care. 3. All medical services, including preventative treatment and dental care, will be covered under this system. 4. All subsidies towards health maintenence organizations ('HMOs') are abolished. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 26, 2007, 12:39:24 AM *note: adoption is already free in the Pacific, and childbirth will be covered in the Universal Health Care Bill.
*re: clause 3, third trimester abortions are already legal in the Pacific, this just repeals a law that was never officially repealed Public Funding in Abortion Bill 1. Any woman who obtains an abortion, at any stage in pregnancy, regardless of the reason the abortion was obtained, will be eligible for a full reimbursement on behalf of the Pacific Abortion Fund Office. 2. The Pacific government will invest $10 million in regional reproductive health clinics to lower costs of abortion and improve facilities. 3. The Third Trimester Abortion Ban Act is repealed. 4. No restriction shall exist within the Pacific region on the so-called "partial birth" abortion procedure. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 26, 2007, 12:55:26 AM Electric Water Heating Bill
1. Effective January 1, 2010, electric water heating systems will be banned. 2. An exception will be made for: a.) Components of solar systems which rely on electricity. b.) Multiple-storey apartment buildings. 3. The Pacific Government will reimburse in full the costs of all citizens switching to a different water heating system until January 1, 2010. Mandatory Handgun Confiscation Bill 1. Effective three months upon the passage of this act, the Pacific Region declares itself a handgun free area. 2. Handgun owners will have three months to give handguns to any local Handgun Amnesty Office without penalty. 3. Three months upon the passage of this act, possession of a handgun will be a crime eligible for up to a $5,000 fine and/or up to six months in prison. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 26, 2007, 12:56:37 AM Minimum Wage Raise Bill
Aye Racial Profiling Bill Aye LSD Legalization Bill Aye Public Services Bill Abstain Environmental Standards Bill Aye Anti-Discrimination Bill Aye Repeal of the Three-Strikes Act Aye Darfur Divestment Bill Aye Pacific Regional Holidays Bill Abstain Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 27, 2007, 04:05:46 PM The Minimum Wage Raise Bill passes with 5 ayes and 2 abstains.
X Governor Jesus The Racial Profiling Bill passes with 5 ayes and 2 abstains. X Governor Jesus The LSD Legalization Bill passes with 4 ayes, 1 nay, and 2 abstains. X Governor Jesus The Public Services Bill passes with 4 ayes, 1 nay, and 2 abstains. X Governor Jesus The Environmental Standards Bill passes with 5 ayes and 1 abstain. X Governor Jesus The Anti-Discrimination Bill passes with 5 ayes, 1 nay, and 1 abstain. X Governor Jesus The Repeal of the Three-Strikes Act passes with 5 ayes, 1 nay, and 1 abstain. X Governor Jesus The Darfur Divestment Bill fails with 3 ayes, 2 nays, and 1 abstain. The Pacific Regional Holidays Bill fails with 3 ayes, 1 nay, and 3 abstains. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 07, 2007, 01:52:46 PM I'm re-introducing/signing the following:
Review of Sentences Under Three-Strikes Law Bill 1) All sentences handed down due to the three-strikes law will be reviewed by the a Justice Reform Council to be formed by appointees of the Pacific Government and funded by a government provision of $3.5m per annum 2) If a sentence is found to be handed down purely because of the demands of the three-strikes law, independent of the sentencing necessary for the third crime, the sentence will be removed and compensation paid up to the amount $5,000. Light Bulbs Bill 1. The production and/or sale of incandescant light bulbs will be illegal effective July 1, 2009. 2. Persons wishing to switch from incandescant light bulbs to more energy-effecient light bulbs will be reimbursed in whole for all related expenses effective immediately upon the passage of this act into law until January 1, 2012. Universal Health Care Bill of 2007 1. The Pacific Region hereby establishes a single-payer universal health care program. 2. This program will be open towards any resident or citizen of the Pacific Region regardless of previous health conditions, disability, citizenship status, criminal record, or economic status. No person will be required to pay for access to health care. 3. All medical services, including preventative treatment and dental care, will be covered under this system. 4. All subsidies towards health maintenence organizations ('HMOs') are abolished. Public Funding in Abortion Bill 1. Any woman who obtains an abortion, at any stage in pregnancy, regardless of the reason the abortion was obtained, will be eligible for a full reimbursement on behalf of the Pacific Abortion Fund Office. 2. The Pacific government will invest $10 million in regional reproductive health clinics to lower costs of abortion and improve facilities. 3. The Third Trimester Abortion Ban Act is repealed. 4. No restriction shall exist within the Pacific region on the so-called "partial birth" abortion procedure. Electric Water Heating Bill 1. Effective January 1, 2010, electric water heating systems will be banned. 2. An exception will be made for: a.) Components of solar systems which rely on electricity. b.) Multiple-storey apartment buildings. 3. The Pacific Government will reimburse in full the costs of all citizens switching to a different water heating system until January 1, 2010. Mandatory Handgun Confiscation Bill 1. Effective three months upon the passage of this act, the Pacific Region declares itself a handgun free area. 2. Handgun owners will have three months to give handguns to any local Handgun Amnesty Office without penalty. 3. Three months upon the passage of this act, possession of a handgun will be a crime eligible for up to a $5,000 fine and/or up to six months in prison. X Governor Jesus Voting will open tomorrow. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 08, 2007, 09:13:37 PM ^^ VOTING IS OPEN. Closes in a week.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on September 12, 2007, 02:55:21 AM Aye to all
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on September 12, 2007, 11:49:12 PM Whoever wrote these...not to be a jerk, but please check your bills for typos. I don't like passing ones with significant mis-spellings. "Incandescent", "maintenance". And "story," unless we're being British. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm cool with that. Propose a bill on that and I'll vote aye!
Review of Sentences Under Three-Strikes Law Bill Nay Light Bulbs Bill Abstain (as in, a non-vote, not an "abstain" that's really a nay) Universal Health Care Bill of 2007 Nay Public Funding in Abortion Bill Nay Electric Water Heating Bill Abstain (as in, a non-vote, not an "abstain" that's really a nay) Mandatory Handgun Confiscation Bill Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Dowager Mod on September 13, 2007, 04:59:36 PM Review of Sentences Under Three-Strikes Law Bill
Nay Light Bulbs Bill NAY Universal Health Care Bill of 2007 AYE Public Funding in Abortion Bill AYE Electric Water Heating Bill ABSTAIN Mandatory Handgun Confiscation Bill NAY Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 15, 2007, 01:43:14 AM Review of Sentences Under Three-Strikes Law Bill
nay Light Bulbs Bill nay Universal Health Care Bill of 2007 abstain Public Funding in Abortion Bill nay Electric Water Heating Bill nay Mandatory Handgun Confiscation Bill nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Rob on September 15, 2007, 06:54:06 PM Aye to all.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 15, 2007, 09:54:12 PM With 2 ayes and 3 nays, the Review of Sentences Under Three-Strikes Law Bill fails.
With 2 ayes and 2 nays, the Light Bulbs Bill fails. With 3 ayes, 1 nay, and 1 abstain, the Universal Health Care Bill of 2007 passes. X Governor Jesus With 3 ayes and 2 nays, the Public Funding in Abortion Bill passes. X Governor Jesus With 2 ayes, 1 nay, and 1 abstain, the Electric Water Heating Bill fails. With 2 ayes and 3 nays, the Mandatory Handgun Confiscation Bill fails. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 05, 2007, 02:52:59 AM Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific Region on Racists
1. The Pacific Region wholeheartedly condemns racism, xenophobia, and nationalism. 2. The Pacific Region condemns people who post on White Nationalist forums. 3. The Pacific Region invites any person who fits the qualification outlined in Clause 2 to leave the Region and/or deregister from Atlasia. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 05, 2007, 12:40:13 PM Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific Region on Racists 1. The Pacific Region wholeheartedly condemns racism, xenophobia, and nationalism. 2. The Pacific Region condemns people who post on White Nationalist forums. 3. The Pacific Region invites any person who fits the qualification outlined in Clause 2 to leave the Region and/or deregister from Atlasia. X Governor Jesus We'll be voting tomorrow. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 06, 2007, 03:43:34 PM Well, looks like nobody has anything to say, so I'm opening voting.
Please vote aye or nay on the following. Voting closes in one week. Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific Region on Racists 1. The Pacific Region wholeheartedly condemns racism, xenophobia, and nationalism. 2. The Pacific Region condemns people who post on White Nationalist forums. 3. The Pacific Region invites any person who fits the qualification outlined in Clause 2 to leave the Region and/or deregister from Atlasia. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 06, 2007, 05:13:17 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on October 06, 2007, 05:18:44 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 06, 2007, 05:49:49 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: phk on October 06, 2007, 06:21:25 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: TheWildCard on October 06, 2007, 09:18:10 PM !EYAAYE! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on October 07, 2007, 02:50:24 AM This combines a very special level of personal harassment with an overstepping of the purpose of the legislature.
Aye! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on October 07, 2007, 11:15:44 PM NAY.
I agree with section one, but freedom of expression allows posting on white nationalist boards-although some things said on such boards may be disgraceful and not worthy of a Pacific citizen, we all still have the right to view and post on those boards, especially if those posts are attacking racism. Whilst is uses words like 'condemn' and 'invites', the impact is pretty clear. Our region is better than this; should we become anti-Nazi Nazis? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 13, 2007, 01:18:08 AM Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill
1. The Pacific Government will ensure that every resident over the age of 16 will be given a minimum income of $14,900 per year. 2. To apply for this minimum income, a resident over the age of 16 must be earning less than $14,900; a citizen earning less than the amount will be given the necessary sum to total an income of $14,900. 3. Residents who do not earn income, including welfare recipients, will be eligible for the full annual $14,900. 4. The guaranteed minimum income will also be open to immigrants including those not documented with the federal government. Free Our Prisons Bill 1. No law shall exist criminalizing the possession, consumption, or sale of any Schedule I or Schedule II drug. 2. Persons incarcerated for violations of drug law will be given automatic release from prison, assuming they have not committed any other crimes, upon passage of this bill. 3. Funds from the regional "War on Drugs" shall be redistributed to drug education and drug addiction treatment programs. 4. "Crimes" in Section 2 shall not be construed as to include being an undocumented immigrant. Metric System Bill 1. The Pacific Government shall convert to use of the Metric system in all relevant affairs, effective two months after passage. Local Restrictions Bill 1. Any local laws restricting the sale of alcohol on the basis of the day of the week, or time of the day, is repealed. 2. Any local laws restricting the sale or possession of water-pipes, glass pipes, rolling papers, rolling filters, or cigarette rolling machines is repealed. 3. Any local laws restricting the right to grow tobacco at home is repealed. 4. No age restriction shall exist to purchase a lighter or safety matches. Affirmative Action Restoration Bill 1. The Affirmative Action Bill is repealed. 2. The Pacific Government will establish an affirmative action in employment program to increase racial and gender diversity in regional employment. Income Tax Increase Bill 1. A new income tax bracket, of 45.5% on annual income exceeding $50 million, is hereby established. Selective Education Bill 1. Effective August 1, 2012, private schools from K-12 will be illegal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on October 13, 2007, 08:35:50 AM Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill 1. The Pacific Government will ensure that every resident will be given a minimum income of $14,900 per year. 2. To apply for this minimum income, a resident must be earning less than $14,900; a citizen earning less than the amount will be given the necessary sum to total an income of $14,900. 3. Residents who do not earn income, including welfare recipients, will be eligible for the full annual $14,900. 4. The guaranteed minimum income will also be open to immigrants including those not documented with the federal government. edit section 1 to "...that every adult citizen will be...". Section three is problematic. Do pensions count towards the minimum income? Scrap section four. I strongly support immigrant rights but that should be a different bill with the complexities more fully realised. Quote Free Our Prisons Bill edit to "...affairs, two months after the date of passage."1. No law shall exist criminalizing the possession, consumption, or sale of any Schedule I or Schedule II drug. 2. Persons incarcerated for violations of drug law will be given automatic release from prison, assuming they have not committed any other crimes, upon passage of this bill. 3. Funds from the regional "War on Drugs" shall be redistributed to drug education and drug addiction treatment programs. 4. "Crimes" in Section 2 shall not be construed as to include being an undocumented immigrant. Metric System Bill 1. The Pacific Government shall convert to use of the Metric system in all relevant affairs. quote] Local Restrictions Bill 1. Any local laws restricting the sale of alcohol on the basis of the day of the week, or time of the day, is repealed. 2. Any local laws restricting the sale of water-pipes, rolling papers, rolling filters, or cigarette rolling machines is repealed. 3. No age restriction shall exist to purchase a lighter or safety matches. [/quote] I like hands off, but I also like better policy than this. What are the effects of this legislation? I'd like to hear some serious discussion on this-I particularly would like to hear from shopkeepers and educators. Quote Affirmative Action Restoration Bill Needs way more detail.1. The Affirmative Action Bill is repealed. 2. The Pacific Government will establish an affirmative action in employment program to increase racial and gender diversity in regional employment. Quote Income Tax Increase Bill No. Way. Ever.1. A new income tax bracket, of 45.5% on annual income exceeding $50 million, is hereby established. Selective Education Bill 1. Effective August 1, 2012, private schools from K-12 will be illegal. Parents have the right to send their children to the school of their choice. I would strongly support the right of a child to refuse to attend a private school under the obligation that they went to the local government school instead, because I recognise the danger of some private schools 'values' and 'education', but the vast majority have a worthwhile role to play and certainly a right to exist. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 13, 2007, 08:10:54 PM edit section 1 to "...that every adult citizen will be...". I have updated the bill to say "every resident over the age of 16." Section three is problematic. Do pensions count towards the minimum income? Any money earned would be subtracted from the $14,900 total. edit to "...affairs, two months after the date of passage." Done. I like hands off, but I also like better policy than this. What are the effects of this legislation? I'd like to hear some serious discussion on this-I particularly would like to hear from shopkeepers and educators. Well, basically, some counties are "dry." Since it is within the Region's power to remove these restrictions, and "dry laws" are an infringement on the rights of our residents, I am hoping to do exactly that. The restrictions on rolling papers, etc., comes from a desire by anti-marijuana politicians to simultaneously curb the availability of any type of tobacco except corporate tailor-made cigarettes. The restrictions are unnecessary, especially now that marijuana is legalized in the Pacific. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 13, 2007, 09:13:32 PM The Resolution to Express the Sense of the Pacific Region on Racists has passed 6-1.
As it looks like there as is active discussion on Porce's recent proposals, I will wait to sign them. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on October 13, 2007, 09:37:20 PM edit section 1 to "...that every adult citizen will be...". I have updated the bill to say "every resident over the age of 16." Section three is problematic. Do pensions count towards the minimum income? Any money earned would be subtracted from the $14,900 total. Quote edit to "...affairs, two months after the date of passage." Done. I like hands off, but I also like better policy than this. What are the effects of this legislation? I'd like to hear some serious discussion on this-I particularly would like to hear from shopkeepers and educators. Well, basically, some counties are "dry." Since it is within the Region's power to remove these restrictions, and "dry laws" are an infringement on the rights of our residents, I am hoping to do exactly that. The restrictions on rolling papers, etc., comes from a desire by anti-marijuana politicians to simultaneously curb the availability of any type of tobacco except corporate tailor-made cigarettes. The restrictions are unnecessary, especially now that marijuana is legalized in the Pacific. The second and third sections I have no problem with, but the first, I think does need to be discussed. Is selling alcohol at 9am really a good idea? Is it a bad idea? Let's hear from the community a bit. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 13, 2007, 09:43:10 PM Is selling alcohol at 9am really a good idea? Is it a bad idea? Let's hear from the community a bit. Well, I'm sure there are plenty of plausible reasons why someone would want to buy alcohol at 9 in the morning. They might be preparing for a party they're hosting later that day, or maybe they're buying groceries and stocking up on whatever they like to drink at the same time. I can't really begin to speculate on every possible reason as to why someone would want to do it, but needless to say I think there are many legitimate reasons that someone may want to buy alcohol at an odd hour of the day. The real issue at stake here is whether the business can decide when it can sell its alcohol, or whether religiously-influenced local restrictions will decide that for them. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 18, 2007, 10:40:07 PM As it looks like discussion has come to and, I shall now proceed to sign the legislation.
Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill 1. The Pacific Government will ensure that every resident over the age of 16 will be given a minimum income of $14,900 per year. 2. To apply for this minimum income, a resident over the age of 16 must be earning less than $14,900; a citizen earning less than the amount will be given the necessary sum to total an income of $14,900. 3. Residents who do not earn income, including welfare recipients, will be eligible for the full annual $14,900. 4. The guaranteed minimum income will also be open to immigrants including those not documented with the federal government. X Governor Jesus Free Our Prisons Bill 1. No law shall exist criminalizing the possession, consumption, or sale of any Schedule I or Schedule II drug. 2. Persons incarcerated for violations of drug law will be given automatic release from prison, assuming they have not committed any other crimes, upon passage of this bill. 3. Funds from the regional "War on Drugs" shall be redistributed to drug education and drug addiction treatment programs. 4. "Crimes" in Section 2 shall not be construed as to include being an undocumented immigrant. X Governor Jesus Metric System Bill 1. The Pacific Government shall convert to use of the Metric system in all relevant affairs, effective two months after passage. X Governor Jesus Local Restrictions Bill 1. Any local laws restricting the sale of alcohol on the basis of the day of the week, or time of the day, is repealed. 2. Any local laws restricting the sale or possession of water-pipes, glass pipes, rolling papers, rolling filters, or cigarette rolling machines is repealed. 3. Any local laws restricting the right to grow tobacco at home is repealed. 4. No age restriction shall exist to purchase a lighter or safety matches. X Governor Jesus Affirmative Action Restoration Bill 1. The Affirmative Action Bill is repealed. 2. The Pacific Government will establish an affirmative action in employment program to increase racial and gender diversity in regional employment. X Governor Jesus Income Tax Increase Bill 1. A new income tax bracket, of 45.5% on annual income exceeding $50 million, is hereby established. X Governor Jesus Selective Education Bill 1. Effective August 1, 2012, private schools from K-12 will be illegal. X Governor Jesus Voting will open sometime tomorrow. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 20, 2007, 03:05:37 PM Voting on the above legislation is now open. Voting will close in exactly one week.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 20, 2007, 05:53:04 PM Aye to all
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on October 20, 2007, 06:50:34 PM Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill
-Nay Free Our Prisons Bill Nay Metric System Bill Aye Local Restrictions Bill Aye Affirmative Action Restoration Bill Aye Income Tax Increase Bill Aye Selective Education Bill Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on October 20, 2007, 06:56:50 PM Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill
Nay Free Our Prisons Bill Abstain Metric System Bill Aye Local Restrictions Bill Aye Affirmative Action Restoration Bill Nay Income Tax Increase Bill Abstain Selective Education Bill Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on October 21, 2007, 08:43:59 PM Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill
Nay Free Our Prisons Bill Nay Metric System Bill Aye Local Restrictions Bill Aye Affirmative Action Restoration Bill Nay Income Tax Increase Bill Aye Selective Education Bill Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 26, 2007, 10:46:41 AM Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill - Nay
Free Our Prisons Bill - Aye Metric System Bill - Aye Local Restrictions Bill - Aye Affirmative Action Restoration Bill - Abstain Income Tax Increase Bill - Aye Selective Education Bill - Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 27, 2007, 06:25:12 PM With 1 Aye and 4 Nays, the Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill fails.
With 2 Ayes, 2 Nays, and 1 Abstain, the Free Our Prisons Bill fails. With 5 Ayes, the Metric System Bill passes. X Governor Jesus With 5 Ayes, the Local Restrictions Bill passes. X Governor Jesus With 2 Ayes, 2 Nays, and 1 Abstain, Affirmative Action Restoration Bill fails. With 4 Ayes and 1 Abstain, the Income Tax Increase Bill passes. X Governor Jesus With 1 Aye and 4 Nays, the Selective Education Bill fails. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 29, 2007, 05:42:07 AM I'd like to propose these two new bills. I'll wait a day or so before signing them so anybody can comment or make suggestions.
MENTAL INSTITUTION BILL 1) The Pacific Region shall construct a state-of-the-art facility to house the region's most dangerous mentally ill patients. 2) The facility will be located on Treasure Island. 3) The facility shall be named the John D. Ford Regional Mental Institution, in honor of the Pacific's second Governor. PACIFIC CAPITOL BUILDING BILL 1) The Pacific Region shall purchase the San Francisco City Hall from the city of San Francisco, using eminent domain if necessary. 2) The San Francisco city government shall have until February 4th, 2008 to relocate. Following this date, the Pacific Regional Government shall move into the building. 3) The city hall shall be renamed the Pacific Capitol Building. 4) The building will serve as the meeting place of the Pacific Legislature, and house the offices of the Pacific Governor and Pacific Senator. 5) The building will include a safe drug-injection site. This will help in preventing the spread of diseases such as AIDS. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 29, 2007, 05:46:48 AM Resolution Concerning the View of the Pacific Region on Capital Punishment
1. The people of the Pacific Region recognize the act of capital punishment as being a form of the government taking the lives of its own residents in a time of peace. 2. The people of the Pacific Region recognize capital punishment to be immoral and wrong. 3. The people of the Pacific Region wholeheartedly condemn the majority of the Southeast, as well as the Northeast Governor, in taking every effort possible to preserve and strengthen capital punishment within the Atlasian regions. 4. The people of the Pacific Region call for the immediate resignation of Governor MAS117 due to his shocking lack of moral character in supporting capital punishment. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on October 29, 2007, 10:31:50 PM I'd like to propose these two new bills. I'll wait a day or so before signing them so anybody can comment or make suggestions. MENTAL INSTITUTION BILL 1) The Pacific Region shall construct a state-of-the-art facility to house the region's most dangerous mentally ill patients. 2) The facility will be located on Treasure Island. 3) The facility shall be named the John D. Ford Regional Mental Institution, in honor of the Pacific's second Governor. PACIFIC CAPITOL BUILDING BILL 1) The Pacific Region shall purchase the San Francisco City Hall from the city of San Francisco, using eminent domain if necessary. 2) The San Francisco city government shall have until February 4th, 2008 to relocate. Following this date, the Pacific Regional Government shall move into the building. 3) The city hall shall be renamed the Pacific Capitol Building. 4) The building will serve as the meeting place of the Pacific Legislature, and house the offices of the Pacific Governor and Pacific Senator. 5) The building will include a safe drug-injection site. This will help in preventing the spread of diseases such as AIDS. Oh and is San Francisco the official capital of the region? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 30, 2007, 01:19:28 AM I'd like to propose these two new bills. I'll wait a day or so before signing them so anybody can comment or make suggestions. MENTAL INSTITUTION BILL 1) The Pacific Region shall construct a state-of-the-art facility to house the region's most dangerous mentally ill patients. 2) The facility will be located on Treasure Island. 3) The facility shall be named the John D. Ford Regional Mental Institution, in honor of the Pacific's second Governor. PACIFIC CAPITOL BUILDING BILL 1) The Pacific Region shall purchase the San Francisco City Hall from the city of San Francisco, using eminent domain if necessary. 2) The San Francisco city government shall have until February 4th, 2008 to relocate. Following this date, the Pacific Regional Government shall move into the building. 3) The city hall shall be renamed the Pacific Capitol Building. 4) The building will serve as the meeting place of the Pacific Legislature, and house the offices of the Pacific Governor and Pacific Senator. 5) The building will include a safe drug-injection site. This will help in preventing the spread of diseases such as AIDS. Oh and is San Francisco the official capital of the region? Yes, SF is the capital. As for creating our own capitol building, what are we going to do, draw crappy designs in paint ? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on October 30, 2007, 11:28:15 PM I'd like to propose these two new bills. I'll wait a day or so before signing them so anybody can comment or make suggestions. MENTAL INSTITUTION BILL 1) The Pacific Region shall construct a state-of-the-art facility to house the region's most dangerous mentally ill patients. 2) The facility will be located on Treasure Island. 3) The facility shall be named the John D. Ford Regional Mental Institution, in honor of the Pacific's second Governor. PACIFIC CAPITOL BUILDING BILL 1) The Pacific Region shall purchase the San Francisco City Hall from the city of San Francisco, using eminent domain if necessary. 2) The San Francisco city government shall have until February 4th, 2008 to relocate. Following this date, the Pacific Regional Government shall move into the building. 3) The city hall shall be renamed the Pacific Capitol Building. 4) The building will serve as the meeting place of the Pacific Legislature, and house the offices of the Pacific Governor and Pacific Senator. 5) The building will include a safe drug-injection site. This will help in preventing the spread of diseases such as AIDS. Oh and is San Francisco the official capital of the region? Yes, SF is the capital. As for creating our own capitol building, what are we going to do, draw crappy designs in paint ? Or copy the design from another capitol building elsewhere in the world Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 31, 2007, 02:37:19 PM ^ Hmm, well, I think using the SF City Hall would be much easier. It actually exists in our capital city, it looks perfect for a capitol building, it has a real location, etc.
Mental Institution Bill 1) The Pacific Region shall construct a state-of-the-art facility to house the region's most dangerous mentally ill patients. 2) The facility will be located on Treasure Island. 3) The facility shall be named the John D. Ford Regional Mental Institution, in honor of the Pacific's second Governor. X Governor Jesus Pacific Capitol Building Bill 1) The Pacific Region shall purchase the San Francisco City Hall from the city of San Francisco, using eminent domain if necessary. 2) The San Francisco city government shall have until February 4th, 2008 to relocate. Following this date, the Pacific Regional Government shall move into the building. 3) The city hall shall be renamed the Pacific Capitol Building. 4) The building will serve as the meeting place of the Pacific Legislature, and house the offices of the Pacific Governor and Pacific Senator. 5) The building will include a safe drug-injection site. This will help in preventing the spread of diseases such as AIDS. X Governor Jesus Resolution Concerning the View of the Pacific Region on Capital Punishment 1. The people of the Pacific Region recognize the act of capital punishment as being a form of the government taking the lives of its own residents in a time of peace. 2. The people of the Pacific Region recognize capital punishment to be immoral and wrong. 3. The people of the Pacific Region wholeheartedly condemn the majority of the Southeast, as well as the Northeast Governor, in taking every effort possible to preserve and strengthen capital punishment within the Atlasian regions. 4. The people of the Pacific Region call for the immediate resignation of Governor MAS117 due to his shocking lack of moral character in supporting capital punishment. X Governor Jesus I'll open voting tomorrow. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 01, 2007, 03:09:01 PM Voting is open on the above legislation.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 01, 2007, 03:15:46 PM Aye to all
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on November 01, 2007, 10:16:08 PM Mental Institution Bill
-Aye Pacific Capitol Building Bill -Aye Resolution Concerning the View of the Pacific Region on Capital Punishment -Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Platypus on November 03, 2007, 04:24:21 AM Nay
Nay Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 03, 2007, 06:55:54 PM Aye on all
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 05, 2007, 09:33:46 PM Aye for all 3.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2007, 01:13:06 PM I
Eye Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on November 07, 2007, 03:24:31 AM Aye to all.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 08, 2007, 04:10:37 PM The Mental Institution Bill passes 6-1.
X Governor Jesus The Pacific Capitol Building Bill passes 6-1. X Governor Jesus The Resolution Concerning the View of the Pacific Region on Capital Punishment passes 5-2. X Governor Jesus Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Everett on November 11, 2007, 02:15:02 PM I am hereby resigning from the office of Pacific Senator due to unanticipated but nonetheless persistent health and personal issues that have well nigh ended my presence on the forum. I will abstain from posting arduous details regarding my recent troubles, though anyone who wishes to know more is free to contact me privately. I sincerely apologise to my supporters for being unable to serve the Pacific Region, and I hope that Governor Jesus can find a suitable replacement.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 12, 2007, 10:27:23 PM ^ I'm sorry to hear that. :(
I'm appointing Friz to fill the Pacific seat in the Senate. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 26, 2007, 04:34:22 PM Here is some legislation I'm proposing:
Electroshock Weapons Restrictions Bill 1) The use of electroshock weapons (including but not limited to tasers) by law enforcement within the Pacific Region is hereby banned. Abstain Bill 1) When one votes "abstain" in the Pacific Legislature, it shall not be counted when determining if the legislation being voted on has received a majority of votes cast. This will prevent voting "abstain" from counting as a de facto nay vote. Comments? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on November 26, 2007, 10:37:03 PM Here is some legislation I'm proposing: Electroshock Weapons Restrictions Bill 1) The use of electroshock weapons (including but not limited to tasers) by law enforcement within the Pacific Region is hereby banned. Abstain Bill 1) When one votes "abstain" in the Pacific Legislature, it shall not be counted when determining if the legislation being voted on has received a majority of votes cast. This will prevent voting "abstain" from counting as a de facto nay vote. Comments? Regarding the electroshock weapons restrictions bill, is it illegal for police in the pacific region to use pepper spray/bullets or batons? (bsically what methods of containment would be left to the police force?) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 27, 2007, 04:00:28 PM Regarding the electroshock weapons restrictions bill, is it illegal for police in the pacific region to use pepper spray/bullets or batons? Yes. This bill only prohibits electroshock weapons. They kill dozens of people every year. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on November 27, 2007, 10:02:54 PM Regarding the electroshock weapons restrictions bill, is it illegal for police in the pacific region to use pepper spray/bullets or batons? Yes. This bill only prohibits electroshock weapons. They kill dozens of people every year. so it IS illegal for police to use pepper spray and batons? (sorry maybe my brain is not quite working today) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 27, 2007, 10:23:36 PM Regarding the electroshock weapons restrictions bill, is it illegal for police in the pacific region to use pepper spray/bullets or batons? Yes. This bill only prohibits electroshock weapons. They kill dozens of people every year. so it IS illegal for police to use pepper spray and batons? (sorry maybe my brain is not quite working today) haha, oops I responded incorrectly. This bill only bans electroshock weapons. Batons and what not are still legal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 28, 2007, 02:38:11 PM Electroshock Weapons Restrictions Bill
1) The use of electroshock weapons (including but not limited to tasers) by law enforcement within the Pacific Region is hereby banned. X Governor Jesus Abstain Bill 1) When one votes "abstain" in the Pacific Legislature, it shall not be counted when determining if the legislation being voted on has received a majority of votes cast. This will prevent voting "abstain" from counting as a de facto nay vote. X Governor Jesus Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 30, 2007, 04:14:32 PM Voting on the open is following:
Electroshock Weapons Restrictions Bill 1) The use of electroshock weapons (including but not limited to tasers) by law enforcement within the Pacific Region is hereby banned. Abstain Bill 1) When one votes "abstain" in the Pacific Legislature, it shall not be counted when determining if the legislation being voted on has received a majority of votes cast. This will prevent voting "abstain" from counting as a de facto nay vote. I vote aye on both. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 01, 2007, 01:57:51 AM Electroshock Weapons Restrictions Bill: Aye
Abstain Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 02, 2007, 03:17:43 PM Electroshock Weapons Restrictions Bill: Nay
Abstain Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 07, 2007, 04:16:47 PM Weird that I checked this almost exactly one week after I opened voting...
Anyway, the Electroshock Weapons Restrictions Bill passes 2-1, and the Abstain Bill passes 3-0. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 08, 2007, 11:17:17 PM Resolution Concerning the Federal Military
It is the position of the people of the Pacific Region that no person should serve in the federal military unless their sexual orientation is of a homosexual persuasion. School Vouchers Bill No person paying taxes from within the Pacific Region will be expected to pay taxes towards any hypothetical federally funded school voucher systems. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 10, 2007, 01:21:40 PM School Vouchers Bill No person paying taxes from within the Pacific Region will be expected to pay taxes towards any hypothetical federally funded school voucher systems. Why would we be taxing on a hypothetical? :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 13, 2007, 03:02:17 AM I'll withdraw the School Vouchers Bill.
Election Day Bill 1. All Election Days in the Pacific shall be designated as official government holidays. 2. No employer may fire or otherwise carry out any reprisal against any employee on the basis of their choice not to work on an Election Day in the Pacific. 3. The above shall not apply to Regional or other government employees essential for the running of elections or for other functions as deemed necessary for the day-to-day maintenance of government. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 13, 2007, 01:04:01 PM 2. No employer may fire or otherwise carry out any reprisal against any employee who chooses not to work on an Election Day in the Pacific. I think that you may want to rephrase that some. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 13, 2007, 05:07:19 PM 2. No employer may fire or otherwise carry out any reprisal against any employee who chooses not to work on an Election Day in the Pacific. I think that you may want to rephrase that some. y? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 14, 2007, 01:28:07 PM 2. No employer may fire or otherwise carry out any reprisal against any employee who chooses not to work on an Election Day in the Pacific. I think that you may want to rephrase that some. y? Literally, it would mean taking off that one day would make someone fire-proof. I'd suggest using "because." Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 14, 2007, 03:47:08 PM 2. No employer may fire or otherwise carry out any reprisal against any employee who chooses not to work on an Election Day in the Pacific. I think that you may want to rephrase that some. y? Literally, it would mean taking off that one day would make someone fire-proof. I'd suggest using "because." Ah, Alcon, you've discovered my covert plan. ;) I'll change it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 15, 2007, 06:38:49 PM Protection of Personal Gambling Bill
1. No municipality within the Pacific may prohibit or restrict gambling among those 16 years of age or older that is organized only among those who are participating in the gambling among themselves and does not involve a "house fee" or any other type of overhead cost. 2. Courts shall be permitted to issue exemptions to this among individuals on parole or who have been convicted of a felony (excluding nonviolent drug or prostitution related offenses). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 16, 2007, 07:34:22 PM I "re-propose" any of these if the time limit has passed.
Resolution Concerning the Federal Military It is the position of the people of the Pacific Region that no person should serve in the federal military unless their sexual orientation is of a homosexual persuasion. Election Day Bill 1. All Election Days in the Pacific shall be designated as official government holidays. 2. No employer may fire or otherwise carry out any reprisal against any employee on the basis of their choice not to work on an Election Day in the Pacific. 3. The above shall not apply to Regional or other government employees essential for the running of elections or for other functions as deemed necessary for the day-to-day maintenance of government. Protection of Personal Gambling Bill 1. No municipality within the Pacific may prohibit or restrict gambling among those 16 years of age or older that is organized only among those who are participating in the gambling among themselves and does not involve a "house fee" or any other type of overhead cost. 2. Courts shall be permitted to issue exemptions to this among individuals on parole or who have been convicted of a felony (excluding nonviolent drug or prostitution related offenses). Is that all, Ebowed? lolll Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 18, 2007, 01:39:44 AM Voting is open on the following legislation for exactly one week:
Resolution Concerning the Federal Military It is the position of the people of the Pacific Region that no person should serve in the federal military unless their sexual orientation is of a homosexual persuasion. Election Day Bill 1. All Election Days in the Pacific shall be designated as official government holidays. 2. No employer may fire or otherwise carry out any reprisal against any employee on the basis of their choice not to work on an Election Day in the Pacific. 3. The above shall not apply to Regional or other government employees essential for the running of elections or for other functions as deemed necessary for the day-to-day maintenance of government. Protection of Personal Gambling Bill 1. No municipality within the Pacific may prohibit or restrict gambling among those 16 years of age or older that is organized only among those who are participating in the gambling among themselves and does not involve a "house fee" or any other type of overhead cost. 2. Courts shall be permitted to issue exemptions to this among individuals on parole or who have been convicted of a felony (excluding nonviolent drug or prostitution related offenses). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 18, 2007, 03:54:13 AM Resolution Concerning the Federal Military: Aye
Election Day Bill: Aye Protection of Personal Gambling Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 18, 2007, 07:51:24 PM Aye on all
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 18, 2007, 09:51:02 PM Nay
Aye Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 19, 2007, 02:05:09 AM Nay
Aye Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 27, 2007, 02:01:02 AM The Resolution Concerning the Federal Military has failed 2-2.
The Election Day Bill has passed 4-0. X Governor Bgwah The Protection of Personal Gambling Bill has passed 4-0. X Governor Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 13, 2008, 08:28:14 PM Prison Diet Bill
1) Whereas meat is a financially and environmentally expensive luxury that humans can live healthily without. 2) Whereas there is no compelling reason to reward criminals in prisons with this expensive luxury. 3) Therefore all prisons and jails within the Pacific Region shall feed their inmates a strict vegetarian diet. X Governor Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on February 13, 2008, 10:02:30 PM Prison Diet Bill 1) Whereas meat is a financially and environmentally expensive luxury that humans can live healthily without. 2) Whereas there is no compelling reason to reward criminals in prisons with this expensive luxury. 3) Therefore all prisons and jails within the Pacific Region shall feed their inmates a strict vegetarian diet. X Governor Bgwah Forcing a diet on a population? That seems a bit extreme/authoritarian... Also a vegitarian diet can be difficult to maintain on a healthy level (getting all your needed proteins and AA's), I really don't see how it would cost that much more to give them meat and we would probably have prison riots break out throughout the region. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 13, 2008, 10:10:19 PM Stupid question:
How/when is the Pacific legislature elected? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 13, 2008, 10:38:32 PM Prison Diet Bill 1) Whereas meat is a financially and environmentally expensive luxury that humans can live healthily without. 2) Whereas there is no compelling reason to reward criminals in prisons with this expensive luxury. 3) Therefore all prisons and jails within the Pacific Region shall feed their inmates a strict vegetarian diet. X Governor Bgwah Forcing a diet on a population? That seems a bit extreme/authoritarian... Also a vegitarian diet can be difficult to maintain on a healthy level (getting all your needed proteins and AA's), I really don't see how it would cost that much more to give them meat and we would probably have prison riots break out throughout the region. I suppose forcing them in prisons is a bit too extreme for you? Forcing them to live in a cell a bit to extreme? Not allowing child rapists to walk through schools---that's extreme, too, I guess. And difficult to maintain? Prison officials will of course make sure they get all of their protein and what not---it is only difficult to maintain if you're a retard. Stupid question: How/when is the Pacific legislature elected? Every Pacific citizen is a legislator. Check out the Wiki and read the Second Pacific Constitution for more information Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 13, 2008, 10:42:09 PM Prison Diet Bill 1) Whereas meat is a financially and environmentally expensive luxury that humans can live healthily without. 2) Whereas there is no compelling reason to reward criminals in prisons with this expensive luxury. 3) Therefore all prisons and jails within the Pacific Region shall feed their inmates a strict vegetarian diet. X Governor Bgwah Forcing a diet on a population? That seems a bit extreme/authoritarian... Also a vegitarian diet can be difficult to maintain on a healthy level (getting all your needed proteins and AA's), I really don't see how it would cost that much more to give them meat and we would probably have prison riots break out throughout the region. I suppose forcing them in prisons is a bit too extreme for you? Forcing them to live in a cell a bit to extreme? Not allowing child rapists to walk through schools---that's extreme, too, I guess. And difficult to maintain? Prison officials will of course make sure they get all of their protein and what not---it is only difficult to maintain if you're a retard. Stupid question: How/when is the Pacific legislature elected? Every Pacific citizen is a legislator. Check out the Wiki and read the Second Pacific Constitution for more information Thanks! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 13, 2008, 10:50:35 PM Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill
1) Whereas Rocky Dennis was a brilliant, brave, hope-inspiring and kind individual from California. 2) Whereas Rocky Dennis is thus a great Pacifican hero and deserves to be honored as such. 3) Therefore the Rocky Mountains shall henceforth be known as the Rocky Dennis Mountains by the Pacific Government, and the people of this fine region demand that the federal government to follow suit. X Governor Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 15, 2008, 08:21:29 PM Voting is open on the following. Voting closes in exactly one week.
Prison Diet Bill 1) Whereas meat is a financially and environmentally expensive luxury that humans can live healthily without. 2) Whereas there is no compelling reason to reward criminals in prisons with this expensive luxury. 3) Therefore all prisons and jails within the Pacific Region shall feed their inmates a strict vegetarian diet. Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill 1) Whereas Rocky Dennis was a brilliant, brave, hope-inspiring and kind individual from California. 2) Whereas Rocky Dennis is thus a great Pacifican hero and deserves to be honored as such. 3) Therefore the Rocky Mountains shall henceforth be known as the Rocky Dennis Mountains by the Pacific Government, and the people of this fine region demand that the federal government to follow suit. AYE ON BOTH. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on February 16, 2008, 12:02:04 AM Prison Diet Bill: NAY
Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill: NAY I would like to add that the disrespect for individual rights in the first bill is astounding even if we are talking about prison imates, it still doesn't change the fact that they are HUMAN. I shutter to think of what would happen to this great region if more authoritarian bills such as this were to be enacted. For the other bill I just don't like anything that resembles a cult. (except for the Rocky Horror Picture show of course) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on February 16, 2008, 12:09:29 AM Prison Diet Bill: Nay
Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 16, 2008, 12:16:40 AM I would like to add that the disrespect for individual rights in the first bill is astounding even if we are talking about prison imates, it still doesn't change the fact that they are HUMAN. I shutter to think of what would happen to this great region if more authoritarian bills such as this were to be enacted. The prisons already pick and choose what food their inmates eat. How is this anymore authoritarian than putting them in prison in the first place? And how is this inhuman!? I never realized how illogical you were. And naming something after someone is resembles a cult? Does our state name resemble a cult? Or most of our county names? Or Seattle? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 16, 2008, 12:23:38 AM Aye to both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on February 16, 2008, 12:29:09 AM Is this a joke?
How does forcing vegetarianism on inmates help the prisons do their job, which is to protect society from criminals? Very surprised that a supposedly legitimate Senate candidate would vote for this nanny statist trash! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 16, 2008, 12:31:48 AM Is this a joke? How does forcing vegetarianism on inmates help the prisons do their job, which is to protect society from criminals? Very surprised that a supposedly legitimate Senate candidate would vote for this nanny statist trash! The purpose isn't to help "prisons do their job," read the bill again to see what the real purpose is. And this is no more "nanny statist" than putting criminals in prison in the first place. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on February 16, 2008, 12:34:20 AM The purpose isn't to help "prisons do their job," read the bill again to see what the real purpose is. And this is no more "nanny statist" than putting criminals in prison in the first place. Why not regulate what prisoners can eat in other areas too then? How about banning them from having access to GM fruits and vegetables? Prison is a necessary evil, as long as all inmates have a fair trial and a fair sentence. Unnecessarily regulating their diet is fascist. Sorry, but if Joe Convict wants to put chicken salt in his noodles, then I think that's one of the perks he ought to have unless he wants to go even more insane dawdling around in prison for ten years. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 16, 2008, 12:42:55 AM Why not regulate what prisoners can eat in other areas too then? How about banning them from having access to GM fruits and vegetables? If we find that they are indeed very environmentally damaging, then we can consider it. But that is still a much-debated issue from what I know, so I see no reason to do it now. Quote Prison is a necessary evil, as long as all inmates have a fair trial and a fair sentence. Unnecessarily regulating their diet is fascist. I don't think a less expensive diet for prisoners is fascist. Quote Sorry, but if Joe Convict wants to put chicken salt in his noodles, then I think that's one of the perks he ought to have unless he wants to go even more insane dawdling around in prison for ten years. Lack of chicken salt does not cause insanity, as far as I know. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on February 16, 2008, 12:57:32 AM I don't think a less expensive diet for prisoners is fascist. If your argument is that prison is a violation of rights in the first place, so it's okay to deprive inmates of meat, why are you arguing in favor of cutting the money we spend on them? Frankly, the savings made from this will be so inconsequential that I have to wonder whether your own personal vegetarianism is the main rationale behind this legislation. Lack of chicken salt does not cause insanity, as far as I know. Stop being an idiot. Being in prison every single day causes people to go nuts. I think it's fair that they're allowed to eat things that normal people are able to enjoy everyday. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 16, 2008, 01:07:14 AM If your argument is that prison is a violation of rights in the first place, so it's okay to deprive inmates of meat, why are you arguing in favor of cutting the money we spend on them? That is not my argument. I simply do not see why this is any "worse" than putting them in prison in the first place. Quote Frankly, the savings made from this will be so inconsequential that I have to wonder whether your own personal vegetarianism is the main rationale behind this legislation. I suppose my personal beliefs in fiscal and environmental responsibility are affecting my rationale, but then again can you honestly say that none of your legislation has anything to do with your beliefs? Quote Stop being an idiot. Being in prison every single day causes people to go nuts. I think it's fair that they're allowed to eat things that normal people are able to enjoy everyday. This part doesn't even deserve a response. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on February 16, 2008, 02:32:40 AM I would like to add that the disrespect for individual rights in the first bill is astounding even if we are talking about prison imates, it still doesn't change the fact that they are HUMAN. I shutter to think of what would happen to this great region if more authoritarian bills such as this were to be enacted. The prisons already pick and choose what food their inmates eat. How is this anymore authoritarian than putting them in prison in the first place? And how is this inhuman!? I never realized how illogical you were. And naming something after someone is resembles a cult? Does our state name resemble a cult? Or most of our county names? Or Seattle? Most of our county names come from great leaders of the nation, Grant (president), Lewis and Clark (the explorers). I just would rather wait 50-100 years to name such a large feature after a person, this helps to let us have a more distanced view on things. And some of this is not about logic, you still have not explained to me how it is worth it to strictly limit a population's diet against their will (we all know it would be) simply to same a small amount of money. Just let the inmates have their meat it is not that big of a deal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 16, 2008, 02:38:17 AM I would like to add that the disrespect for individual rights in the first bill is astounding even if we are talking about prison imates, it still doesn't change the fact that they are HUMAN. I shutter to think of what would happen to this great region if more authoritarian bills such as this were to be enacted. The prisons already pick and choose what food their inmates eat. How is this anymore authoritarian than putting them in prison in the first place? And how is this inhuman!? I never realized how illogical you were. And naming something after someone is resembles a cult? Does our state name resemble a cult? Or most of our county names? Or Seattle? Most of our county names come from great leaders of the nation, Grant (president), Lewis and Clark (the explorers). I just would rather wait 50-100 years to name such a large feature after a person, this helps to let us have a more distanced view on things. And some of this is not about logic, you still have not explained to me how it is worth it to strictly limit a population's diet against their will (we all know it would be) simply to same a small amount of money. Just let the inmates have their meat it is not that big of a deal. The food available to them is already picked by the prison. Many aspects of their prison lives are "against their will," so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think any money should be wasted. Every cent of taxpayer money saved is worth it. I also see no compelling reason for the government to provide such an environmentally exhausting food source to these prisoners. I'm actually kind of glad this bill has turned out to be so controversial! This is the best debating we've had going on in the legislature in over a year. Let's keep it up. :D BTW, you guys should propose some legislation for fun. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 19, 2008, 01:44:34 PM Prison Diet Bill: Aye
Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 22, 2008, 09:35:21 PM The Prison Diet Bill passes 3-2.
X Governor Bgwah The Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill passes 4-1. X Governor Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on February 22, 2008, 10:38:40 PM The Prison Diet Bill passes 3-2. X Governor Bgwah The Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill passes 4-1. X Governor Bgwah didn't Friz vote? I could have sworn that I saw a post with him voting.... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 07, 2008, 07:43:57 PM Gasoline Consumer Protection Act
1. All prices for gasoline displayed at gas stations must be rounded up to the nearest cent. 2. If a station is found noncompliant, the company operating the station shall be fined 10% of the earnings at that station during the period of noncompliance. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 07, 2008, 11:49:36 PM Gasoline Consumer Protection Act 1. All prices for gasoline displayed at gas stations must be rounded up to the nearest cent. 2. If a station is found noncompliant, the company operating the station shall be fined 10% of the earnings at that station during the period of noncompliance. I approve this law, personally I hate seeing the $3.49.99 at gas stations, why can't they just say $3.50? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 09, 2008, 03:11:25 AM Great, a bill that makes gas more expensive ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 11, 2008, 04:55:59 AM Regional Motto Bill
1) The regional motto of the Pacific will be "In Rocky we trust" upon the passing of this legislation. X Governor Bgwah Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill, Part II 1) The face of the great Rocky Dennis shall be carved into Kings Peak, Utah. 2) This carving shall be 31 meters high. 3) This project shall be paid for by the money saved from the Prison Diet Bill. 4) Kings Peak shall be henceforth known as Mount Rockymore. 5) Carving shall begin immediately upon the passing of this bill. X Governor Bgwah Resolution concerning human colonization of outer space 1) The people of the Pacific Region demand that the first planet to be permanently colonized by human settlers be named after Rocky Dennis. X Governor Bgwah Renaming of Interstate 5 Bill 1) Interstate 5 shall now be known by the Pacific Government as Rocky Road. X Governor Bgwah Resolution concerning the Midwestern dictatorship 1) The people of the Pacific Region hereby condemn Midwestern Governor ilikeverin for his undemocratic dictatorship, demand that he resigns, and demand that the Midwest Regional constitution be amended so that it is more democratic. X Governor Bgwah Smoking Rights Amendment 1) The right of owners of private establishments, such as but not limited to restaurants and bars, to determine whether or not their establishments allow the smoking of tobacco by those of legal age shall not be infringed upon. X Governor Bgwah Gasoline Consumer Protection Act 1. All prices for gasoline displayed at gas stations must be rounded up to the nearest cent. 2. If a station is found noncompliant, the company operating the station shall be fined 10% of the earnings at that station during the period of noncompliance. OKAY SURE WE CAN VOTE ON THIS SOON X Governor Bgwah Voting on all of the above will open sometime later this week. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 11, 2008, 10:30:09 PM Smoking Rights Amendment
1) The right of owners of private establishments, such as but not limited to restaurants and bars, to determine whether or not their establishments allow the smoking of tobacco by those of legal age shall not be infringed upon. X Governor Bgwah hmmm... while I oppose this bill I think there are some amendments that could be added to make it better if it did indeed pass. Possibilities: -An amendment that calls for all private establishments that do allow the smoking of tobacco to provide a non-smoking area for patrons who prefer a smoke-free environment. -An amendment that adds funds to education programs that stress the health risks of smoking. -An amendment that invests funds in programs that help smokers quit (the funding could easily come from the money saved from medical expenses that smokers would have otherwise used). Resolution concerning human colonization of outer space 1) The people of the Pacific Region demand that the first planet to be permanently colonized by human settlers be named after Rocky Dennis. X Governor Bgwah Could we also add on there anything about the planet being a functioning part of the Pacific Region (as well as possibly being settled by Pacificans?) Also with the regional motto: "In Rocky we trust" are we free to interpret this to mean any rocky? For example Rocky Balboa: () Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 11, 2008, 10:52:08 PM Smoking Rights Amendment 1) The right of owners of private establishments, such as but not limited to restaurants and bars, to determine whether or not their establishments allow the smoking of tobacco by those of legal age shall not be infringed upon. X Governor Bgwah hmmm... while I oppose this bill I think there are some amendments that could be added to make it better if it did indeed pass. Possibilities: -An amendment that calls for all private establishments that do allow the smoking of tobacco to provide a non-smoking area for patrons who prefer a smoke-free environment. -An amendment that adds funds to education programs that stress the health risks of smoking. -An amendment that invests funds in programs that help smokers quit (the funding could easily come from the money saved from medical expenses that smokers would have otherwise used). No thx :) Quote Resolution concerning human colonization of outer space 1) The people of the Pacific Region demand that the first planet to be permanently colonized by human settlers be named after Rocky Dennis. X Governor Bgwah Could we also add on there anything about the planet being a functioning part of the Pacific Region (as well as possibly being settled by Pacificans?) I'm afraid that may be unreasonable---who knows what will be of our fine region in the future in the first place. We just need to make sure Rocky gets the honor he deserves by having an important planet named after him. Quote Also with the regional motto: "In Rocky we trust" are we free to interpret this to mean any rocky? For example Rocky Balboa: Certainly! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 11, 2008, 11:05:00 PM Smoking Rights Amendment 1) The right of owners of private establishments, such as but not limited to restaurants and bars, to determine whether or not their establishments allow the smoking of tobacco by those of legal age shall not be infringed upon. X Governor Bgwah hmmm... while I oppose this bill I think there are some amendments that could be added to make it better if it did indeed pass. Possibilities: -An amendment that calls for all private establishments that do allow the smoking of tobacco to provide a non-smoking area for patrons who prefer a smoke-free environment. -An amendment that adds funds to education programs that stress the health risks of smoking. -An amendment that invests funds in programs that help smokers quit (the funding could easily come from the money saved from medical expenses that smokers would have otherwise used). No thx :) Quote Resolution concerning human colonization of outer space 1) The people of the Pacific Region demand that the first planet to be permanently colonized by human settlers be named after Rocky Dennis. X Governor Bgwah Could we also add on there anything about the planet being a functioning part of the Pacific Region (as well as possibly being settled by Pacificans?) I'm afraid that may be unreasonable---who knows what will be of our fine region in the future in the first place. We just need to make sure Rocky gets the honor he deserves by having an important planet named after him. Quote Also with the regional motto: "In Rocky we trust" are we free to interpret this to mean any rocky? For example Rocky Balboa: Certainly! hmm... Well could we include funding to build an intergalictic transporter or star ship in order to ensure that the Pacific is the first region to discover a habitable planet? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 12, 2008, 05:05:19 AM VOTING IS OPEN ON THE FOLLOWING!! Please vote aye or nay. Voting ends in one week.
Gasoline Consumer Protection Act 1. All prices for gasoline displayed at gas stations must be rounded up to the nearest cent. 2. If a station is found noncompliant, the company operating the station shall be fined 10% of the earnings at that station during the period of noncompliance. Regional Motto Bill 1) The regional motto of the Pacific will be "In Rocky we trust" upon the passing of this legislation. Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill, Part II 1) The face of the great Rocky Dennis shall be carved into Kings Peak, Utah. 2) This carving shall be 31 meters high. 3) This project shall be paid for by the money saved from the Prison Diet Bill. 4) Kings Peak shall be henceforth known as Mount Rockymore. 5) Carving shall begin immediately upon the passing of this bill. Resolution concerning human colonization of outer space 1) The people of the Pacific Region demand that the first planet to be permanently colonized by human settlers be named after Rocky Dennis. Renaming of Interstate 5 Bill 1) Interstate 5 shall now be known by the Pacific Government as Rocky Road. Resolution concerning the Midwestern dictatorship 1) The people of the Pacific Region hereby condemn Midwestern Governor ilikeverin for his undemocratic dictatorship, demand that he resigns, and demand that the Midwest Regional constitution be amended so that it is more democratic. Smoking Rights Amendment 1) The right of owners of private establishments, such as but not limited to restaurants and bars, to determine whether or not their establishments allow the smoking of tobacco by those of legal age shall not be infringed upon. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 12, 2008, 05:35:27 PM Gasoline Consumer Protection Act: Aye
Regional Motto Bill: Nay Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill, Part II: Aye Resolution concerning human colonization of outer space: Aye Renaming of Interstate 5 Bill: Nay, since it's the worst freeway in the region. We need a better freeway, more befitting of him. Resolution concerning the Midwestern dictatorship: Nay Smoking Rights Amendment: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 12, 2008, 06:39:39 PM Gasoline Consumer Protection Act: Nay
Regional Motto Bill: Aye Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill, Part II: Aye Resolution concerning human colonization of outer space: Aye Renaming of Interstate 5 Bill: Aye Resolution concerning the Midwestern dictatorship: Aye Smoking Rights Amendment: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 12, 2008, 10:18:45 PM Gasoline Consumer Protection Act: Aye
Regional Motto Bill: Aye Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill, Part II: Aye Resolution concerning human colonization of outer space: Aye Renaming of Interstate 5 Bill: Aye Resolution concerning the Midwestern dictatorship: Aye Smoking Rights Amendment: Nay (think of the children! ;) ) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 16, 2008, 01:52:40 AM aye infinity
(limited to these votes only. the ayes have to end.) Except the gas bill. That's a nay. They have ended. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 16, 2008, 01:57:16 AM Gasoline Consumer Protection Act - Nay
Regional Motto Bill - Aye Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill, Part II - Aye Resolution concerning human colonization of outer space - Aye Renaming of Interstate 5 Bill - Aye Resolution concerning the Midwestern dictatorship - Aye Smoking Rights Amendment - Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 19, 2008, 09:34:55 AM The Gasoline Consumer Protection Act has failed 2-3.
The Regional Motto Bill has passed 4-1. X Governor Bgwah The Rocky Dennis Memorial Bill, Part II has passed 5-0. X Governor Bgwah The Resolution concerning human colonization of outer space has passed 5-0. X Governor Bgwah The Renaming of Interstate 5 Bill has passed 4-1. X Governor Bgwah The Resolution concerning the Midwestern dictatorship has passed 4-1. X Governor Bgwah The Smoking Rights Amendment has passed 4-1. X Governor Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 03, 2008, 11:01:58 PM Infant Abandonment Bill
1. Any woman who gives birth may abandon the infant to medical personnel, or to a police station or fire station, without financial or legal penalty up to four weeks after birth. Mothers' Rights Bill 1. No local law may be enacted to restrict the right of a mother to breastfeed her infant in public. 2. No public establishment may discriminate on the basis of public breastfeeding. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on April 03, 2008, 11:16:36 PM Infant Abandonment Bill 1. Any woman who gives birth may abandon the infant to medical personnel without financial or legal penalty up to one week after birth, or when she leaves the hospital as a result of the pregnancy, whichever occurs later. Mothers' Rights Bill 1. No local law may be enacted to restrict the right of a mother to breastfeed her infant in public. 2. No public establishment may discriminate on the basis of public breastfeeding. These both sound good to me, though isn't there already a law much luch the abandonment bill? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 07, 2008, 06:34:57 PM Accuracy in Balloting Bill
1. Xahar shall henceforth appear as "Chode" on all regional ballots. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on April 07, 2008, 06:39:40 PM Sheer brilliance!
I hereby sign all three of Ebowed's bills. I will open voting soon. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 07, 2008, 06:43:39 PM Accuracy in Balloting Bill 1. Xahar shall henceforth appear as "Chode" on all regional ballots. Haha. I fully intend to sue if this passes. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on April 12, 2008, 03:22:41 PM Voting is open on the following. Voting closes in one week.
Infant Abandonment Bill 1. Any woman who gives birth may abandon the infant to medical personnel, or to a police station or fire station, without financial or legal penalty up to four weeks after birth. Mothers' Rights Bill 1. No local law may be enacted to restrict the right of a mother to breastfeed her infant in public. 2. No public establishment may discriminate on the basis of public breastfeeding. Accuracy in Balloting Bill 1. Xahar shall henceforth appear as "Chode" on all regional ballots. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 12, 2008, 03:58:57 PM Aye
Aye Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on April 16, 2008, 10:08:57 PM For the next round I would like to propose:
DMV Music Enjoyment Act 1. During its hours of operations the DMV must play The Ride of the Valkyries by Richard Wagner and the entire soundtrack to Yentl with Barbara Streisand in its waiting rooms. 2. The music may be temporarily paused only for announcements. 3. If a DMV so chooses they may play the movie Yentl in place of the soundtrack. 4. The music is not to be any lower than 90 dB. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 16, 2008, 10:10:56 PM Aye
Aye Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Friz on April 16, 2008, 10:12:36 PM Aye
Aye Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on April 18, 2008, 06:08:28 AM Meh, might as well appoint Alcon Lt. Governor!
*appoints* yay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 18, 2008, 10:27:38 AM Yay!!!!!!!1111111111111
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on April 19, 2008, 10:31:19 AM Aye
Aye Abstain Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on April 19, 2008, 10:23:41 PM With 3 ayes, the Infant Abandonment Bill has passed.
X Governor Bgwah The 3 ayes, the Mothers' Rights Bill has passed. X Governor Bgwah With 2 ayes, 1 nay, and 1 abstain, the Accuracy in Balloting Bill has passed. X Governor Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 20, 2008, 12:05:33 PM HIV/AIDS Bill of Rights
1. It is the policy of the Pacific government that no person may be discriminated against in entitlements programs (including welfare, education, and health care services) on the basis of being infected with HIV. 2. The Pacific government shall not discriminate in employment against persons infected with HIV. 3. The Pacific government urges the federal government to repeal the ban on the immigration of HIV-positive persons. 4. The Pacific government will guarantee that no unreasonable burden shall be placed on access to prescribed medical cannabis for AIDS patients (as well as others afflicted with conditions where cannabis may be used medicinally). 5. The Pacific government will ensure, in all areas where the status of someone as HIV-positive is known, complete confidentiality. Drug War Phase-Out Act 1. The Pacific government, effective immediately upon the passage of this act, shall no longer retain criminal or civil penalties for the manufacture, possession, consumption, distribution, or sale (or intent to do any of the above) of psilocybin- and psilocin-containing mushrooms, Peyote, mescaline, ibogaine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (MDE/MDEA), 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), or gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) for anyone who is 18 years or older. 2. The Pacific government will lift restrictions on research into the efficacy of LSD and psilocybin in the treatment of cluster headaches; the use of MDMA, MDA, MDE/MDEA, LSD, psilocybin, psilocin, and mescaline in psychotherapy; and the use of ibogaine in treating drug dependence. Private Prison Ban Act 1. No prison where persons are sent to be incarcerated within the Pacific Region may be privately owned or operated. Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act 1. The possible sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is hereby abolished. 2. Statute outlining the sentence abolished above shall be amended to read "life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty years." Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on May 28, 2008, 02:23:28 AM HIV/AIDS Bill of Rights 1. It is the policy of the Pacific government that no person may be discriminated against in entitlements programs (including welfare, education, and health care services) on the basis of being infected with HIV. 2. The Pacific government shall not discriminate in employment against persons infected with HIV. 3. The Pacific government urges the federal government to repeal the ban on the immigration of HIV-positive persons. 4. The Pacific government will guarantee that no unreasonable burden shall be placed on access to prescribed medical cannabis for AIDS patients (as well as others afflicted with conditions where cannabis may be used medicinally). 5. The Pacific government will ensure, in all areas where the status of someone as HIV-positive is known, complete confidentiality. Drug War Phase-Out Act 1. The Pacific government, effective immediately upon the passage of this act, shall no longer retain criminal or civil penalties for the manufacture, possession, consumption, distribution, or sale (or intent to do any of the above) of psilocybin- and psilocin-containing mushrooms, Peyote, mescaline, ibogaine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (MDE/MDEA), 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), or gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) for anyone who is 18 years or older. 2. The Pacific government will lift restrictions on research into the efficacy of LSD and psilocybin in the treatment of cluster headaches; the use of MDMA, MDA, MDE/MDEA, LSD, psilocybin, psilocin, and mescaline in psychotherapy; and the use of ibogaine in treating drug dependence. Private Prison Ban Act 1. No prison where persons are sent to be incarcerated within the Pacific Region may be privately owned or operated. Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act 1. The possible sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is hereby abolished. 2. Statute outlining the sentence abolished above shall be amended to read "life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty years." (re-introduced if necessary) and SIGNED. Voting will commence sometime after the required 24 hours have passed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on May 29, 2008, 03:05:20 PM Voting is open on the following. Voting closes in seven days.
HIV/AIDS Bill of Rights 1. It is the policy of the Pacific government that no person may be discriminated against in entitlements programs (including welfare, education, and health care services) on the basis of being infected with HIV. 2. The Pacific government shall not discriminate in employment against persons infected with HIV. 3. The Pacific government urges the federal government to repeal the ban on the immigration of HIV-positive persons. 4. The Pacific government will guarantee that no unreasonable burden shall be placed on access to prescribed medical cannabis for AIDS patients (as well as others afflicted with conditions where cannabis may be used medicinally). 5. The Pacific government will ensure, in all areas where the status of someone as HIV-positive is known, complete confidentiality. Drug War Phase-Out Act 1. The Pacific government, effective immediately upon the passage of this act, shall no longer retain criminal or civil penalties for the manufacture, possession, consumption, distribution, or sale (or intent to do any of the above) of psilocybin- and psilocin-containing mushrooms, Peyote, mescaline, ibogaine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (MDE/MDEA), 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), or gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) for anyone who is 18 years or older. 2. The Pacific government will lift restrictions on research into the efficacy of LSD and psilocybin in the treatment of cluster headaches; the use of MDMA, MDA, MDE/MDEA, LSD, psilocybin, psilocin, and mescaline in psychotherapy; and the use of ibogaine in treating drug dependence. Private Prison Ban Act 1. No prison where persons are sent to be incarcerated within the Pacific Region may be privately owned or operated. Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act 1. The possible sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is hereby abolished. 2. Statute outlining the sentence abolished above shall be amended to read "life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty years." Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 29, 2008, 05:27:54 PM Aye
Aye Aye Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on May 29, 2008, 05:48:51 PM aye
nay aye nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 29, 2008, 10:17:04 PM Aye
Aye Aye Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on May 30, 2008, 01:59:11 PM Abstain
Aye Aye Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on May 30, 2008, 04:59:26 PM Abstain
Nay Nay Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on May 30, 2008, 05:32:15 PM Aye
Aye Aye Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Friz on June 03, 2008, 11:03:57 PM Aye
Aye Aye Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 06, 2008, 02:55:45 AM With 5 ayes and 2 abstains, the HIV/AIDS Bill of Rights has passed.
X Governor Bgwah With 5 ayes and 2 nays, the Drug War Phase-Out Act has passed. X Governor Bgwah With 6 ayes and 1 nay, the Private Prison Ban Act has passed. X Governor Bgwah With 2 ayes and 5 nays, the Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act has not passed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 30, 2008, 03:55:58 PM Regional renaming amendment
1) The Pacific Region shall be henceforth known as the Bgwahland Region. 2) All references to the Pacific Region shall be changed to the Bgwahland Region in the current constitution. WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK OF MY AWESOME AMENDMENT?? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 03, 2008, 03:55:36 AM Voting is open on the following amendment to the regional constitution. Voting closes in exactly one week. Please vote aye or nay.
Regional renaming amendment 1) The Pacific Region shall be henceforth known as the Bgwahland Region. 2) All references to the Pacific Region shall be changed to the Bgwahland Region in the current constitution. I vote aye!! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on July 05, 2008, 05:05:28 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on July 05, 2008, 11:38:16 AM Nay.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 05, 2008, 01:21:31 PM Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on July 05, 2008, 10:47:46 PM Nay.
It sounds too much like Swaziland and I don't want the Pacific to turn into a backwards region... I offer up this idea: Regional renaming amendment 1) The Pacific Region shall be henceforth known as Pacifica. 2) All references to the Pacific Region shall be changed to Pacifica in the current constitution. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 23, 2008, 07:31:38 PM WELL my awesome amendment hasn't passed. Oh well! Now for more important matters...
Resolution concerning Turkey 1) On July 23rd, 2008, Turkish terrorists attacked Atlasia. 2) In response, the people of the Pacific Region call for the eradication of the nation of Turkey and demand that the federal government declare war immediately. 3) The remains of the nation of Turkey shall be split among the regions of Atlasia, with the Pacific Region getting at least (but not limited to) the European portion and the Asians parts of Istanbul, which shall have its name restored to Constantinople. X Governor Bgwah Okay, now for some more serious legislation: Constitutional Amendment 1) Section 2:4 of Article I shall be amended to read "The Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall take office at noon Pacific Standard Time on the first Friday in the month after their election." 2) This amendment shall go into effect immediately upon passing. X Governor Bgwah The amendment basically changes our taking office time from the first Friday after the election (which occurs during the same month of the election) to the first Friday in the next month. This is how the federal government works. My logic is if someone who is a federal official like a Senator (who decided not to seek re-election in the federal election going on at the same time as the regional election) is elected Governor or Lt. Governor, their term would begin approximately one week before their term as Senator ended. Just seems like a minor bug that should be fixed, since you can't technically hold two offices at once. I'll open voting on this legislation tomorrow if nobody has anything to say... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 23, 2008, 07:36:28 PM Change the name of Istanbul to Byzantium and I'll agree to both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 23, 2008, 07:39:57 PM Change the name of Istanbul to Byzantium and I'll agree to both. Hmm, well when we admit that part of Turkey as the Pacific's 11th state, perhaps it can be named Byzantium (though Wikipedia says it was originally Byzantion!), but I think the city should be named Constantinople. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 23, 2008, 07:52:31 PM Change the name of Istanbul to Byzantium and I'll agree to both. Hmm, well when we admit that part of Turkey as the Pacific's 11th state, perhaps it can be named Byzantium (though Wikipedia says it was originally Byzantion!), but I think the city should be named Constantinople. :) Sure. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 29, 2008, 04:30:20 PM Please vote aye or nay on the following legislation. Voting closes in exactly one week.
Resolution concerning Turkey 1) On July 23rd, 2008, Turkish terrorists attacked Atlasia. 2) In response, the people of the Pacific Region call for the eradication of the nation of Turkey and demand that the federal government declare war immediately. 3) The remains of the nation of Turkey shall be split among the regions of Atlasia, with the Pacific Region getting at least (but not limited to) the European portion and the Asians parts of Istanbul, which shall have its name restored to Constantinople. Constitutional Amendment 1) Section 2:4 of Article I shall be amended to read "The Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall take office at noon Pacific Standard Time on the first Friday in the month after their election." 2) This amendment shall go into effect immediately upon passing. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 29, 2008, 04:31:57 PM Aye to both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Associate Justice PiT on July 31, 2008, 11:14:28 AM Aye.
Aye. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on July 31, 2008, 09:32:33 PM Nay, Aye. War is hell. And I don't want even a sliver of Turkey. Too high maintenance. When the Mexicans speak English as well as I do, and vote the way I do, maybe, but not now. Give it to somebody else. How about Iraq so that the Kurds can reunite?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 31, 2008, 09:34:35 PM Aye, Nay. War is hell. And I don't want even a sliver of Turkey. Too high maintenance. When the Mexicans speak English as well as I do, and vote the way I do, maybe, but not now. Give it to somebody else. How about Iraq so that the Kurds can reunite? We give the Bosposrus to Iraq? And shouldn't that be nay and aye? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on July 31, 2008, 09:56:25 PM I think I blew the 20 minute rule and invalidated my vote again. Such is life. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 31, 2008, 10:25:46 PM I think I blew the 20 minute rule and invalidated my vote again. Such is life. :) But this is a legislature, so there is no such rule, thankfully. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on July 31, 2008, 10:52:35 PM aye
aye Bgwah would you like to draw up a map of the revised Turkey so I can introduce the measure to the senate and actually take some action? By the way Byzantion is an awesome name, though I prefer Constantinople. Oh and what happened to my proposal to rename the Pacific as Pacifica? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 31, 2008, 11:03:17 PM aye aye Bgwah would you like to draw up a map of the revised Turkey so I can introduce the measure to the senate and actually take some action? By the way Byzantion is an awesome name, though I prefer Constantinople. Oh and what happened to my proposal to rename the Pacific as Pacifica? Basically, we get all the coastal provinces, and the rest are split into four bands, one region getting each. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on July 31, 2008, 11:31:59 PM aye aye Bgwah would you like to draw up a map of the revised Turkey so I can introduce the measure to the senate and actually take some action? By the way Byzantion is an awesome name, though I prefer Constantinople. Oh and what happened to my proposal to rename the Pacific as Pacifica? Basically, we get all the coastal provinces, and the rest are split into four bands, one region getting each. That is going to over well with the Senate. Pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered. :) I get Carmel, and you get Vallejo. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 31, 2008, 11:39:34 PM I get Carmel, and you get Vallejo. How about you get Santa Barbara, and I get Carmel and Vallejo? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 02, 2008, 05:16:49 AM Aye on both
Oh and what happened to my proposal to rename the Pacific as Pacifica? It never got the required number of signatures. The Governor's signature alone is enough--but I didn't feel like editing all those Wiki pages was worth an extra a, so... :( As for the map, perhaps I will if this passes. In the mean time, you can get the federal government to recognize the Rocky Dennis Mountains! ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 05, 2008, 06:41:17 PM The Resolution concerning Turkey has passed 4-1.
X Governor Bgwah The seventh Constitutional Amendment has passed 5-0. X Governor Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Associate Justice PiT on August 06, 2008, 09:58:17 PM I come to you all with a proposal. If this is not the proper channel for introducing legislation, please let me know. However, I have two bills that I wish to put to a vote.
The Recognition of Columbia Act 1. A movement favoring secession is gathering steam in the "Dirty South" region. 2. Fearing secession, Andy Jackson has seceded from the "Dirty South," forming the Provisional Republic of Columbia in Texas. 3. Be it resolved that the Pacific Region hereby recognizes the independence of the Provisional Republic of Columbia in Texas. Columbian Defense Initiative 1. This act shall go into effect if & only if The Recognition of Columbia Act is passed & signed into law. 2. The Pacific Region shall pledge whatever armed forces it deems necessary to maintain the continued independence of the Provisional Republic of Columbia in Texas from the "Dirty South" region. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 06, 2008, 10:06:53 PM I'd like to propose two amendments to the former bill:
1. Replace all occurences of "Dirty South" with Southeast. 2. Change Clause 3 to "Be it resolved that the Pacific Region hereby reaffims its committment to a united Atlasia." I'd also like to propose two amendemts to the latter bill: 1. Strike Clause 1. 2. Replace Clause 2 with "The Pacific Region shall pledge whatever armed forces it deems necessary to maintain the continued allegiance of the Southeast Region to the Atlasian government." Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Associate Justice PiT on August 06, 2008, 10:22:52 PM I'll accept those changes. So it now reads:
The Atlasian Unity Act 1. A movement favoring secession is gathering steam in the Southeast region. 2. Fearing secession, Andy Jackson has seceded from the Southeast, forming the Provisional Republic of Columbia in Texas. 3. Be it resolved that the Pacific Region hereby reaffims its committment to a united Atlasia. Atlasian Defense Initiative 1. The Pacific Region shall pledge whatever armed forces it deems necessary to maintain the continued allegiance of the Southeast Region to the Atlasian government. If anyone wants to vote on the first versions of both bills, I'm open to it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Associate Justice PiT on August 07, 2008, 12:28:10 PM On further thought, I would like a vote on the original versions of both bills, as well as Xahar's amendments to both bills.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Associate Justice PiT on August 07, 2008, 05:21:47 PM On further still thought, I'd like to put these two bills on hold until the future of the regional election of class A Senators is clear.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 21, 2008, 11:35:57 PM True Accuracy in Balloting Act
The Accuracy in balloting Act is hereby repealed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 19, 2008, 05:44:20 PM Crazy Hat Day Act
1) The second Tuesday of every October shall be henceforth known as Crazy Hat Day. 2) Pacificans are encouraged to wear wacky and crazy hats on this day. 3) Businesses, schools, and other institutions shall allow their employees, students, and visitors to wear these hats or face fines. X Governor Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 21, 2008, 01:56:31 AM Voting is now open on the following legislation. Please vote aye or nay. Voting closes in exactly one week.
Crazy Hat Day Act 1) The second Tuesday of every October shall be henceforth known as Crazy Hat Day. 2) Pacificans are encouraged to wear wacky and crazy hats on this day. 3) Businesses, schools, and other institutions shall allow their employees, students, and visitors to wear these hats or face fines. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on September 22, 2008, 06:03:20 PM This bill kind of reflects a government that has nothing to do doesn't it? :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on September 22, 2008, 10:47:13 PM Aye
I would also like to propose the following: The Awesome Recognition Act: 1) In recognition of his great achievements for the city of Seattle and the Pacific Region a 300+ foot statue will be constructed in the likeness of Paul Allen. 2) The statue will be awesome. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on September 22, 2008, 11:35:06 PM Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act
1. Currently existing excise consumption ("sin") taxes existing on tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, and pornography products are hereby abolished. 2. The sales tax on food and grocery items is hereby abolished. 3. The sales tax on books is hereby abolished. 4. The provisions of this act will take effect two weeks after this becomes law. Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act 1. Any regional and local laws to prohibit the sale, consumption, distribution, or manufacture of alkyl nitrites ("poppers") is repealed. 2. Sale of alkyl nitrites to persons under the age of 18 will remain illegal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on September 23, 2008, 12:51:05 PM I would like to offer up the following amendment to the Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act:
Strike section 1. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 23, 2008, 04:52:56 PM Yea
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 23, 2008, 07:02:34 PM ^ Can you please clarify if you're voting in favor of CK's amendment or the Crazy Hat Day Act?
And I vote AYE on the Crazy Hat Day Act, of course. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on September 24, 2008, 06:42:49 AM Crazy Hat Day Act: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 24, 2008, 03:12:03 PM ^ Can you please clarify if you're voting in favor of CK's amendment or the Crazy Hat Day Act? And I vote AYE on the Crazy Hat Day Act, of course. Both. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on September 24, 2008, 03:30:48 PM Abstain
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 25, 2008, 12:24:10 AM I would like to offer up the following amendment to the Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act: Strike section 1. What is the benefit of sin taxes? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on September 25, 2008, 07:47:20 PM I would like to offer up the following amendment to the Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act: Strike section 1. What is the benefit of sin taxes? Those who choose to use such substances as nicotine end up costing the government money for health care, this is a way for them to help pay for their cost to society. Also it usually helps to pay for prevention and quitting plans. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on September 25, 2008, 11:29:05 PM Aye on the Crazy Hat Dat Act and aye on the amendment of CultureKing on the Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on September 26, 2008, 03:06:20 PM Oh:
Aye on the amendment Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 30, 2008, 09:46:32 PM With 5 ayes and 1 abstain, the Crazy Hat Day Act has passed.
X Governor Bgwah And sure, we'll vote on these starting later this week. Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act 1. The sales tax on food and grocery items is hereby abolished. 2. The sales tax on books is hereby abolished. 3. The provisions of this act will take effect two weeks after this becomes law. X Governor Bgwah Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act 1. Any regional and local laws to prohibit the sale, consumption, distribution, or manufacture of alkyl nitrites ("poppers") is repealed. 2. Sale of alkyl nitrites to persons under the age of 18 will remain illegal. X Governor Bgwah The Awesome Recognition Act: 1) In recognition of his great achievements for the city of Seattle and the Pacific Region a 300+ foot statue will be constructed in the likeness of Paul Allen. 2) The statue will be awesome. X Governor Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 30, 2008, 11:12:14 PM Where will we get the money to cover the reduction in sales taxes?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on September 30, 2008, 11:26:31 PM By the ''sin taxes'' and people will have more money without food and books taxes so they'll have more money to buy other things with taxes.
Or i don't know. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on October 01, 2008, 12:33:13 AM Where will we get the money to cover the reduction in sales taxes? I caught a leprechaun. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 01, 2008, 02:34:26 AM Where will we get the money to cover the reduction in sales taxes? We have a high progressive income tax and an estate tax. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 02, 2008, 03:16:57 PM Voting is open on the following legislation. Please vote aye or nay. Voting closes in one week.
Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act 1. The sales tax on food and grocery items is hereby abolished. 2. The sales tax on books is hereby abolished. 3. The provisions of this act will take effect two weeks after this becomes law. Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act 1. Any regional and local laws to prohibit the sale, consumption, distribution, or manufacture of alkyl nitrites ("poppers") is repealed. 2. Sale of alkyl nitrites to persons under the age of 18 will remain illegal. The Awesome Recognition Act: 1) In recognition of his great achievements for the city of Seattle and the Pacific Region a 300+ foot statue will be constructed in the likeness of Paul Allen. 2) The statue will be awesome. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 02, 2008, 08:18:17 PM Aye to all.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 03, 2008, 01:55:25 AM Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act - Aye
Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act - Aye The Awesome Recognition Act - Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on October 04, 2008, 12:44:59 PM Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act - Aye
Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act - Nay The Awesome Recognition Act - Abstain Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Friz on October 04, 2008, 04:17:53 PM Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act - Aye
Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act - Aye The Awesome Recognition Act - Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on October 04, 2008, 04:50:42 PM Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act - Aye
Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act - Nay The Awesome Recognition Act - Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on October 04, 2008, 07:13:10 PM Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act - Aye
Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act - Nay The Awesome Recognition Act - Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 05, 2008, 11:05:36 AM Third Constitutional Convention Petition
The Pacific Region formally petitions the President of Atlasia to call a Constitutional Convention. Fairly straightforward and uncontroversial. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 13, 2008, 05:03:42 PM The Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act has passed 6-0.
X Governor Bgwah The Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act has not passed 3-3. The The Awesome Recognition Act has passed 5-0-1. X Governor Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 13, 2008, 05:15:56 PM Third Constitutional Convention Petition The Pacific Region formally petitions the President of Atlasia to call a Constitutional Convention. Fairly straightforward and uncontroversial. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on October 13, 2008, 05:25:24 PM Third Constitutional Convention Petition The Pacific Region formally petitions the President of Atlasia to call a Constitutional Convention. Fairly straightforward and uncontroversial. I would like to see what the presidential candidates have to say about this issue. I just asked the question, in the debate. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 06, 2008, 10:52:41 PM *cough*
I'm appointing CultureKing Lt. Governor Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 07, 2008, 12:13:52 AM *cough* I'm appointing CultureKing Lt. Governor Did he resign from the Senate? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 07, 2008, 03:43:56 PM ^yes
I'm officially President now/resign as Governor Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on November 30, 2008, 11:12:40 PM So... anyone have any bright ideas?
Or should I just commision the building of gold statues in the likeness of B celebrities? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 01, 2008, 12:28:13 AM Third Constitutional Convention Petition The Pacific Region formally petitions the President of Atlasia to call a Constitutional Convention. Fairly straightforward and uncontroversial. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 01, 2008, 01:18:15 AM And why do we need a convention?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on December 01, 2008, 09:27:24 AM https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=77795.0
Everyone vote yes kthanks. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 01, 2008, 06:18:01 PM And why do we need a convention? Agreed. I would like to hear some arguements before even considering to bring it up for a vote. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 01, 2008, 06:24:51 PM And why do we need a convention? Agreed. I would like to hear some arguements before even considering to bring it up for a vote. Meeker posted them. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 04, 2008, 08:38:19 PM Competition in Races is a Good Thing Act
Findings: Competition is good Section 1: If in a race for a Pacific governmental position there is only one candidate or there is no candidate a potato will be be chosen to be a secondary option (or primary) option. After the election if said potato is elected it will retain the post. ----- Instead of having empty positions we might as well put something in there... ;) I will formerly introduce this for a vote in a few days. Truthfully I don't even know if it is constitutional though it would be fun to see if a potato could beat certain candidates. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 04, 2008, 08:45:06 PM Motion to amend:
Competition in Races is a Good Thing Act Findings: Competition is good Section 1: If in a race for a Pacific governmental position there is only one candidate or there is no candidate This would be constitutional. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on December 05, 2008, 12:15:36 AM Competition in Races is a Good Thing Act Findings: Competition is good Section 1: If in a race for a Pacific governmental position there is only one candidate or there is no candidate a potato will be be chosen to be a secondary option (or primary) option. After the election if said potato is elected it will retain the post. ----- Instead of having empty positions we might as well put something in there... ;) I will formerly introduce this for a vote in a few days. Truthfully I don't even know if it is constitutional though it would be fun to see if a potato could beat certain candidates. Not happening this time, Culture. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 05, 2008, 06:32:17 PM We are now voting on the following:
---------------------------------------------- Competition in Races is a Good Thing Act Findings: Competition is good Section 1: If in a race for a Pacific governmental position there is only one candidate or there is no candidate a potato will be be chosen to be a secondary option (or primary) option. After the election if said potato is elected it will retain the post. --------------------------------------------- Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 05, 2008, 09:31:39 PM I proposed an amendment.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: HappyWarrior on December 07, 2008, 12:04:35 AM I proposed an amendment. In Pacific you no propose amendment. Amendment propose you. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 07, 2008, 07:31:13 PM Fine Xahar, we will vote on your amendment...
Motion to amend: Competition in Races is a Good Thing Act Findings: Competition is good Section 1: If in a race for a Pacific governmental position there is only one candidate or there is no candidate This would be constitutional. Please vote Aye, Nay or abstain. ---------------------------------- Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 07, 2008, 07:41:44 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 09, 2008, 02:19:12 PM So... anyone else want to get involved and vote? Or should Xahar and I just declare a benevolent dictatorship?
;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 09, 2008, 04:09:55 PM I can live with that. :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 09, 2008, 08:20:48 PM Nay; Both the amendment and the Act are silly anyway :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on December 09, 2008, 08:33:00 PM Nay; Both the amendment and the Act are silly anyway :P Congratulations, you just discovered Pacific Legislature. Only silly acts, because that is the only power they have. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 10, 2008, 12:14:26 AM Nay; Both the amendment and the Act are silly anyway :P Congratulations, you just discovered Pacific Legislature. Only silly acts, because that is the only power they have. Every now and then something important comes up, but yes many of the important legislation was passed ealier on (regarding issues such as abortion, the environment and the like). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 10, 2008, 12:15:35 AM Third Constitutional Convention Petition The Pacific Region formally petitions the President of Atlasia to call a Constitutional Convention. Fairly straightforward and uncontroversial. I suppose the one week time limit has passed, so I would like to re-propose this bill. X Bgwah Once it gains a total of three signatures (or the Governor's) we can have a vote on it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on December 10, 2008, 12:24:15 AM X MaxQue
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 10, 2008, 12:26:17 AM x Marokai Blue
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on December 10, 2008, 12:26:29 AM Hooray!
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 10, 2008, 12:35:16 AM X Me
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 10, 2008, 01:28:08 AM [X] Governor CultureKing
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 10, 2008, 09:25:44 PM Xahar's amendment has failed by a 1-2 margin.
We sure are getting great participation here... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on December 10, 2008, 09:30:32 PM Xahar's amendment has failed by a 1-2 margin. We sure are getting great participation here... I totally agree with you. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 10, 2008, 09:52:08 PM We could try occasionally sending mass-PMs to Pacific citizens, to raise awareness, try to get them to participate more?
Even just the occasional look by just a few other members would make this alot more interesting. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 20, 2008, 07:31:45 PM We are now voting on the following:
Competition in Races is a Good Thing Act Findings: Competition is good Section 1: If in a race for a Pacific governmental position there is only one candidate or there is no candidate a potato will be be chosen to be a secondary option (or primary) option. After the election if said potato is elected it will retain the post. --------------------------- Third Constitutional Convention Petition The Pacific Region formally petitions the President of Atlasia to call a Constitutional Convention. ---------------------------------------------------- Please vote Aye or Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 20, 2008, 08:00:58 PM Aye to both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 20, 2008, 08:01:06 PM Aye on both
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on December 21, 2008, 01:28:24 PM Potato : Nay
Constitutional Convention: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on December 21, 2008, 02:39:34 PM Potato : aye
Constitutional Convention: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 21, 2008, 04:03:11 PM "Potato Act": Nay
Con Con: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 21, 2008, 10:14:56 PM Voting on the proposed measures will end in about 20-21 hours.
------ Both: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 21, 2008, 11:08:29 PM Nay
Aye Voting on the proposed measures will end in about 20-21 hours. ------ Both: Aye Legislative voting lasts for a week, actually. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 22, 2008, 06:51:14 PM Nay Aye Voting on the proposed measures will end in about 20-21 hours. ------ Both: Aye Legislative voting lasts for a week, actually. :) Well, if you insist... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on December 23, 2008, 10:16:38 PM Potato: Aye
ConCon: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on December 27, 2008, 02:40:25 AM Voting is now closed, both measures have passed:
------------------------ Competition in Races is a Good Thing Act: Aye: 5 Nay: 3 Third Constitutional Convention Petition: Aye: 8 Nay: 0 Governor CultureKing Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on January 31, 2009, 09:11:40 PM (Whistles to self while watching a tumble-weed pass by)
So... anyone want to propose something? Anything? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 01, 2009, 04:51:14 AM Do we have the legal authority to revoke the existence of Bakersfield?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on February 01, 2009, 03:56:09 PM Do we have the legal authority to revoke the existence of Bakersfield? Maybe we can have a non-binding resolution calling for the residents to leave the Pacific and destroy their houses Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on February 01, 2009, 06:53:10 PM Do we have the legal authority to revoke the existence of Bakersfield? Maybe we can have a non-binding resolution calling for the residents to leave the Pacific and destroy their houses I was also thinking of perhaps "inviting" British Columbia to join the Pacific.... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on February 01, 2009, 09:16:07 PM In exchange can we sell Bakersfield to Canada? We can throw in Oildale
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on February 01, 2009, 09:21:11 PM In exchange can we sell Bakersfield to Canada? We can throw in Oildale What is the problem with Bakersfield? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on February 02, 2009, 01:47:44 AM Have you driven through it?
There's no problem as long as you don't mind the smell of manure infiltrating your clothes for weeks despite the fact you put your car's air conditioner on "recycle" Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on February 02, 2009, 03:10:05 AM I think I would be happy with a proposition to exchange Bakersfield and Oildale for British Columbia.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on February 02, 2009, 08:09:50 PM wiki'd it and apparently Oildale used to be a major center for the KKK lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oildale,_California CUT'EM LOOSE Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on February 05, 2009, 02:55:52 AM The best course for this would simply be a petition right? We probably don't want to act too much like our own nation and invade a sovereign nation, that's the Feds job.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on February 06, 2009, 03:31:38 AM Does anyone disagree with a symbolic gesture?
Maybe we could additionally petition our representatives, I mean, I can't imagine anyone, left, right, or libertarian that could defend the existence of Bakersfield & Oildale. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on February 06, 2009, 12:31:22 PM Why not cut them funding?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on February 06, 2009, 05:33:04 PM Pacific Petition to the Atlasian Federal Government:
We the people of the Pacific region appeal to our government and act accordingly. We propose that an exchange takes place between Atlasia and Canada. The Pacific would like to exchange Bakersfield and Oildale for British Columbia. This exhange would be benificial to both nations. The Pacific would become a continous region and gain an area that is culturally simular to much of The Pacific. Canada would gain an area that has a warm climate that could potentially become a vacationing paradise for Canadians. -------------- Meh? Perhaps we should throw in Fresno... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on February 06, 2009, 06:38:29 PM What if Canada doesn't buy our used-car-dealer-schtick? Maybe we could deport them all to Somalia?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on February 07, 2009, 01:15:35 AM What if Canada doesn't buy our used-car-dealer-schtick? Maybe we could deport them all to Somalia? The federal government can "convince" the Canadians. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on February 07, 2009, 03:46:30 PM Maybe our Plan B could be a "Final Solution"....?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 09, 2009, 05:25:30 PM I have a idea that comes from my "Meeting of Minds" thread.
In order to better take care of the wiki, legislation should be introduced to give the Governor and/or Lt. Governor of the Pacific the responsibilities of updating the Wiki with regard to Pacific Citizens, Pacific Legislation, Petitions from the Pacific Legislature, elections in the Pacific, etc. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on February 10, 2009, 11:19:06 AM I have a idea that comes from my "Meeting of Minds" thread. In order to better take care of the wiki, legislation should be introduced to give the Governor and/or Lt. Governor of the Pacific the responsibilities of updating the Wiki with regard to Pacific Citizens, Pacific Legislation, Petitions from the Pacific Legislature, elections in the Pacific, etc. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 10, 2009, 01:11:07 PM I have a idea that comes from my "Meeting of Minds" thread. In order to better take care of the wiki, legislation should be introduced to give the Governor and/or Lt. Governor of the Pacific the responsibilities of updating the Wiki with regard to Pacific Citizens, Pacific Legislation, Petitions from the Pacific Legislature, elections in the Pacific, etc. Even if I that is the case, I haven't seen anything like that (and I looked in a LOT of places when I joined Atlasia for information) which sort of makes my point. Where is our esteemed Lt. Governor, anyway. I haven't seen him around much at all since the election. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on February 16, 2009, 04:06:38 AM I apologize, I forgot that I was Lt. Governor. Again.
You may have to remind me in the morning, too, I am not wholly sober Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on February 18, 2009, 02:31:25 AM I think I speak for everyone in in the Pacific in the request for you to do this intoxicated. We'll deal.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on February 18, 2009, 05:50:25 PM I think I speak for everyone in in the Pacific in the request for you to do this intoxicated. We'll deal. Agreed it will probably make for a more interesting Wiki. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 04, 2009, 08:11:08 AM Can we do anything about Ogis? :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 04, 2009, 05:10:56 PM Ok, so here are the candidates to become Pacific Delegates to the Atlasian Constitutional Convention:
-Bgwah -coffeebeans -CultureKing -Lunar -Marokai Blue -Maxque -Meekermariner --------------------------------- So, how do we want to go about this? Have everyone put their preferences in order? Vote for five and the ones with most votes becomes the delegates? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 04, 2009, 06:04:55 PM I'll give my five votes to:
Bgwah CultureKing Meeker Marokai Blue Lunar, if he wants it. If he drops out, the fifth goes to MaxQue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 04, 2009, 06:42:44 PM I guess if we're voting here:
1. Marokai Blue 2. Bgwah 3. Maxque 4. Lunar 5. Meeker Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 04, 2009, 06:49:54 PM (I honestly feel bad leaving out the Governor, but outside of myself and my fellow SDPer, the Prez, VP, and Lunar for his unique perspective, I didn't have another slot. :()
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 05, 2009, 12:45:55 AM My votes:
Bgwah CultureKing Marokai Blue Meeker Lunar Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on March 05, 2009, 01:23:10 AM In no particular order:
Marokai Blue Bgwah Lunar Meeker MaxQue Seems well varied to me. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on March 05, 2009, 12:17:28 PM -Meekermariner
-Marokai Blue -Bgwah -Maxque -CultureKing (HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE IN THE BOTTOM?? :)) -coffeebeans - sorry, don't know anything about you -Lunar - sorry ur just a loser Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 05, 2009, 05:17:26 PM bgwah
cultureking lunar marokai blue meekermariner if lunar refuses, maxque (sorry coffeebeans, but I don't really know who you are...) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sir Coffeebeans on March 05, 2009, 06:21:34 PM coffeebeans
max que bgwah lunar meeker Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 05, 2009, 06:43:09 PM I'm hurt. :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on March 05, 2009, 08:17:21 PM This is very hard. We all deserve that place.
MaxQue VP Meeker Marokai Blue Bgwah Lunar (if he decides to go, if not CultureKing) Sorry CultureKing, but Lunar has said than he killed you. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 05, 2009, 09:14:53 PM True, but thankfully I had life insurance so I am back from the dead.
Yeah, my life insurance kicks ass. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 05, 2009, 10:04:37 PM True, but thankfully I had life insurance so I am back from the dead. Yeah, my life insurance kicks ass. Will the Governor bring forward legislation to open access to such kickass insurance to all Pacific citizens? :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 05, 2009, 10:34:31 PM True, but thankfully I had life insurance so I am back from the dead. Yeah, my life insurance kicks ass. Will the Governor bring forward legislation to open access to such kickass insurance to all Pacific citizens? :) Perhaps ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on March 06, 2009, 12:24:36 AM True, but thankfully I had life insurance so I am back from the dead. Yeah, my life insurance kicks ass. Will the Governor bring forward legislation to open access to such kickass insurance to all Pacific citizens? :) Perhaps ;) Sorry, too late to change my vote. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on March 06, 2009, 02:21:06 AM My first Pacific Legislature vote!!!1111!!one!!!
Meeker Bgwah Marokai Blue Lunar MaxQue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 07, 2009, 03:59:16 PM Voting ends March 11 at 6 pm PST.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on March 07, 2009, 04:27:35 PM I see CultureKing has ANOTHER ENEMY
My first Pacific Legislature vote!!!1111!!one!!! Meeker Bgwah Marokai Blue Lunar MaxQue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on March 08, 2009, 11:34:58 AM bgwah
cultureking lunar marokai blue meekermariner if lunar refuses, maxque Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 10, 2009, 06:40:32 PM Bgwah
CultureKing Meeker Marokai Blue Lunar Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 12, 2009, 09:20:13 PM Ok, voting is now over. Here are the results:
-Bgwah: 11 (Elected) -Marokai Blue: 11 (Elected) -Meekermariner: 11 (Elected) -Lunar: 10 (Elected) -CultureKing: 6 (Tie) -Maxque: 6 (Tie) -coffeebeans: 1 ----------------------------- So our Delegates to the Atlasia Constitutional Convention are: Bgwah Lunar Marokia Blue Meekermariner ??? -Governor CultureKing Wow, the first time I did this I counted wrong... Embarrassing. Anyways we have a tie. We will now preceed to a runoff between Maxque and CultureKing. Please vote for one. The runoff will last for two days (ends on Saturday, March 14th at 8PM PST). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 12, 2009, 09:30:52 PM In the name of ideological diversity, I vote for MaxQue.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on March 12, 2009, 10:08:56 PM I'll bow out in favor of someone who has been historically more active. I merely had some interest in this but I think both CK and Maxque have more experience with the current flaws of the system.
-Lunar out. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 12, 2009, 10:30:55 PM ok then here are our delegates:
Bgwah CultureKing Marokia Blue Maxque Meekermariner --------------------------- You know Lunar you could have stayed in, I don't think Maxque nor I would have minded. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on March 12, 2009, 11:23:42 PM You know Lunar you could have stayed in, I don't think Maxque nor I would have minded. True, but I also agree with Lunar than we have more experience with the flaws. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on March 12, 2009, 11:27:05 PM Also, you need the rewrite the certification. Marokia Blue doesn't exist. That is Marokai Blue.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 13, 2009, 12:07:59 AM Also, you need the rewrite the certification. Marokia Blue doesn't exist. That is Marokai Blue. Whoops, my bad: Pacific Delegates: Bgwah CultureKing Marokai Blue Maxque Meekermariner -Governor CultureKing Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 24, 2009, 09:22:31 PM We are now voting on the following petition to the federal government:
------------- We the people of the Pacific wish to unite with our brothers and sisters in British Columbia and encourage the Federal Government to use whatever means deemed appropriate or necessary to "Convince" the Canadian government to cede sovereignty of this area. ------------ Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on March 24, 2009, 10:37:14 PM No.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 24, 2009, 11:13:42 PM Nay, easily.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on March 25, 2009, 12:07:23 AM Hell yes!!
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 25, 2009, 04:53:41 AM I cast a proud "yes" vote from New Westminster, B.C.'s historic Columbia Street.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 25, 2009, 06:08:57 AM Why don't we just introduce legislation to establish a colony on the moon under the Pacific flag? Makes about as much sense as this piece of joke legislation.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on March 25, 2009, 01:01:24 PM I cast a proud "yes" vote from New Westminster, B.C.'s historic Columbia Street. You forgot the religious and conservative people of Eastern BC. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 27, 2009, 11:45:53 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on March 29, 2009, 07:32:40 PM Aye, o/c
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on March 29, 2009, 07:40:04 PM Aye
Perhaps the citizens of Bakersfield could be part of our "Operation Human Shield" Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on March 29, 2009, 09:13:15 PM I vote Aye
-------------- Total: AYE: 6 NAY: 2 Governor CultureKing ------------------ And with that the process has begun. The Federal Government has been informed our the Pacific's desire to redraw the borders to incorporate our brothers in the North. Soon the Pacific shall be united in GLORY!!! Oh, and perhaps we should delve into Marokai Blue's suggestion of a moon colony. Anyone interested? Perhaps we could bring it back and attach it to a moon pedestal? http://www.theonion.com/content/video/kim_jong_il_announces_plan_to Also we may want to pursue a claim of Antartica for the Pacific. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on March 29, 2009, 10:50:05 PM Actually, we'll need to do more work to be united in the Pacific. If we succeed in British Colombia, I would suggest looking at Baja and non-American Samoa for our next
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on March 29, 2009, 10:54:20 PM Actually, we'll need to do more work to be united in the Pacific. If we succeed in British Colombia, I would suggest looking at Baja and non-American Samoa for our next I would love adding Baja. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Franzl on April 02, 2009, 06:06:37 AM Might I suggest that you start discussing how to use the funds allocated to your region under the "Help Atlasia Study Act"?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 02, 2009, 06:45:50 AM Might I suggest that you start discussing how to use the funds allocated to your region under the "Help Atlasia Study Act"? We're too busy building an empire, apparently. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on April 15, 2009, 01:13:42 AM A reminder to the Pacific Public:
We will have an election this Friday for the positions of Governor and Lieutenant governor. Currently there is only one candidate declared for either position... perhaps someone would like to run? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 15, 2009, 01:26:48 AM A reminder to the Pacific Public: We will have an election this Friday for the positions of Governor and Lieutenant governor. Currently there is only one candidate declared for either position... perhaps someone would like to run? I was considering running again for Lt. Governor, but I'm happy as Attorney General. ;) I'm not sure why you'd expect anyone to run, the Pacific is dominated by the JCP afterall. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on April 18, 2009, 03:29:06 AM I refused to vote because Alcon once closed my Comedy thread and didn't apologise
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on April 21, 2009, 09:34:58 PM Might I suggest that you start discussing how to use the funds allocated to your region under the "Help Atlasia Study Act"? Well, that's something to do. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on April 21, 2009, 09:46:34 PM Might I suggest that you start discussing how to use the funds allocated to your region under the "Help Atlasia Study Act"? Well, that's something to do. Sure, that sounds like a good idea. Anyone have any estimates on exactly how much money this entails? I know it comes from a tax on the rich, but I would love to know an exact number. Oh and I personally favor using this money towards only public institutions of higher learning, it is not the government's responsibility to interfere in private institutions (also in some cases this could be considered funding a religious institution which gets into the whole separation of church and state issue). Remember too that this is coming from a student currently enrolled at a private institution of higher learning. Perhaps we could simply drastically reduce tuition levels at public universities and state colleges (as well as helping out community colleges). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on April 21, 2009, 11:03:02 PM That's the federal law:
F.L. 30-3: The Help Atlasia Study Act of 2009 Section 1: In an effort to make a college education more universally available than it is currently, and to attempt to provide equal chances to all Atlasian citizens, the Atlasian government will subsidize a portion of college tuition for every eligible young Atlasian. Section 2: The funds allotted to this program shall be dispensed amongst the regions proportional to their population. The regional governments may then dispense said funds as it sees fit to college or post-graduate school-enrolled residents of that region between the ages of 18 and 30. Section 3: Atlasia will fund this program with an increased tax of 0.5% on all income above $500,000. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on April 28, 2009, 09:13:32 PM Um... anyone have any other ideas on what to do with the education money besides what I proposed?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 02, 2009, 11:45:57 PM As long as the scholarship plan is based on income needs rather than solely merit - no point using this money to subsidize the rich.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on May 10, 2009, 09:29:42 PM I will be in Europe (London, Salzburg, and Berlin) for the next 12 days. As a result I will have severly limited internet access as I am travelling. Just a notification that your governor may not be very active in the next little while. If you need me and I am not answering please go ahead to Alcon, our great Lt. Governor.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 10, 2009, 09:42:00 PM FASCISM HAS COME TO THE PACIFIC.
:P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on May 13, 2009, 05:10:50 PM Ok, so I am going to make a proposal for the education funding since everyone else seems hesitant to do so:
The Pacific Region has decided to allocate its funds from The Help Atlasia Study Act of 2009 in the following ways: 1) Towards decreasing tuition costs for public universities 2) Towards reducing the student vs teacher ratio in the classroom by hiring more teachers. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on May 13, 2009, 05:11:14 PM please vote on the above measure.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on May 13, 2009, 11:09:48 PM I'm not sure than we could use that money for anything else than grants and lowering fees.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Franzl on May 14, 2009, 02:19:59 AM I'm not sure than we could use that money for anything else than grants and lowering fees. That is correct. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on May 14, 2009, 12:26:30 PM So, nay.
I can't vote for an illegal project. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on May 17, 2009, 04:23:27 AM Yay, I can.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 19, 2009, 12:09:49 PM Nay, dubious legality.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on June 02, 2009, 12:22:20 AM I'm not sure than we could use that money for anything else than grants and lowering fees. That is correct. Isn't that exactly what I am proposing? I don't see why you can't gear grants and the lowering of fees to certain areas... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on June 02, 2009, 02:50:19 AM I'm not sure than we could use that money for anything else than grants and lowering fees. That is correct. Isn't that exactly what I am proposing? I don't see why you can't gear grants and the lowering of fees to certain areas... Because Federal gives us money for GRANTS. It is illegal to use it to lower the fees. Don't blame me. I have not voted this. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on June 02, 2009, 02:51:31 AM ()
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Franzl on June 02, 2009, 05:42:10 AM I'm not sure than we could use that money for anything else than grants and lowering fees. That is correct. Isn't that exactly what I am proposing? I don't see why you can't gear grants and the lowering of fees to certain areas... The Pacific bill clearly talks about using the money to hire more teachers, which would not be acceptable under the Help Atlasia Study Act. Don't get me wrong....Hiring teachers is a good thing ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on June 02, 2009, 08:51:20 PM ...ok how about simplifying it a bit:
The Pacific Region has decided to allocate its funds from The Help Atlasia Study Act of 2009 in the following way: 1) Towards decreasing tuition costs students attending (specifically economically disadvantaged students) public universities better? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 07, 2009, 02:17:13 AM Official Regional Name Bill
1) The Pacific Region's official name shall henceforth be "The People's Region of the Pacific". 2) Pacific, The Pacific, and the Pacific Region shall remain accepted casual names. Renaming of San Luis Opisbo County Bill 1) San Luis Opisbo County, California shall henceforth be named San Luis Opebo County in honor of Opebo, Atlasia's longest serving Supreme Court Justice. Affirmation of the Pacific Region's Right to Continue Existing Bill 1) The people of the Pacific Region vow to oppose any efforts to abolish or reduce their region. Official Regional Plant Bill 1) Cannabis shall be the official regional plant of the Pacific effective immediately. Government Furniture Bill 1) The Pacific Regional Government shall not purchase any furniture made with leather or any other product derived from the slaughter of animals effective immediately. School Bus Bill 1) All public school buses in the Pacific Region must be repainted neon green effective August 1, 2009. Salad Bar Bill 1) All public schools in the Pacific Region with at least 300 students must equip their cafeterias with a full-service salad bar by the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year in order to provide and encourage healthy eating choices. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on June 07, 2009, 02:19:23 AM Affirmative Action Ban Repeal Bill
The Affirmative Action Bill is hereby repealed. For reference: Quote 1. For the purposes of this act, "affirmative action" is defined as granting special preference or other advantage in employment to individuals on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or economic status. 2. No agency of the government of the Pacific Region may use affirmative action in any decision relating to the selection, payment, treatment, or dismissal of any employee. 3. No public university of the Pacific Region may use affirmative action in any decision relating to the admission, treatment, or removal of any student. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on June 07, 2009, 03:10:42 AM That is interesting. Some propositions are bad, but others are good. I will write something more detailled tomorrow.
By the way, what are the rules of this Legislature? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on June 07, 2009, 03:40:30 PM When are we going to vote on the capital punishment abolishment amendment?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on June 07, 2009, 04:04:16 PM When are we going to vote on the capital punishment abolishment amendment? When the governor will be there to open the voting booth. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 07, 2009, 04:16:16 PM That is interesting. Some propositions are bad, but others are good. I will write something more detailled tomorrow. By the way, what are the rules of this Legislature? https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution#Section_1:_Legislation When are we going to vote on the capital punishment abolishment amendment? CultureKing hasn't logged on yet today. I suspect he will open the voting booth when he does. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on June 07, 2009, 11:27:13 PM I sign:
Renaming of San Luis Obispo County Bill Government Furniture Bill Salad Bar Bill I encourage the Pacificans to sign them. If three persons or the governor sign them within a week, the Legislature will study them. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 07, 2009, 11:43:55 PM I sign in support of all of them, I think it's healthy for all bills to be heard.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on June 07, 2009, 11:49:20 PM ok, so do we just want to proceed to a vote on the proposals or have a period of discussion?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on June 08, 2009, 12:04:30 AM ok, so do we just want to proceed to a vote on the proposals or have a period of discussion? So, you agree to bringing them in the legislature? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 10, 2009, 09:33:51 PM I sign all as well, for the record.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on June 10, 2009, 09:35:26 PM Just a question, why doesn't the Pacific move their legislature thread to the Elections main board so that new members are more aware of its existence?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 10, 2009, 09:36:01 PM Just a question, why doesn't the Pacific move their legislature thread to the Elections main board so that new members are more aware of its existence? I would love to do that, and in fact, I'd love an entirely new legislature thread so it seems a bit less daunting. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 10, 2009, 09:37:07 PM Just a question, why doesn't the Pacific move their legislature thread to the Elections main board so that new members are more aware of its existence? It's never crossed my mind, but I suspect it would frequently fall off the first page, making it even less noticeable. Just a question, why doesn't the Pacific move their legislature thread to the Elections main board so that new members are more aware of its existence? I would love to do that, and in fact, I'd love an entirely new legislature thread so it seems a bit less daunting. Heresy! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on June 10, 2009, 09:56:29 PM Just a question, why doesn't the Pacific move their legislature thread to the Elections main board so that new members are more aware of its existence? It's never crossed my mind, but I suspect it would frequently fall off the first page, making it even less noticeable. You're probably right around times like this, when campaigns seem to take up the first two pages, but the Mideast Assembly thread seems to do well nonetheless. And it has proven to attract many new members due to its availability. I'm not even saying start a new one. You could always get a mod to move it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on June 12, 2009, 02:35:08 PM Just a question, why doesn't the Pacific move their legislature thread to the Elections main board so that new members are more aware of its existence? we're an exclusive club of naysayers Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on June 15, 2009, 01:00:45 AM Ok, so a few things:
1) In a few days I will start my summer job as a camp counselor, as such I am only going to have at most an hour of internet per day, please be understanding. Though once a week I will have a day off to catch up on everything. 2) Very likely I will not be running for re-election in August. Have a fun time campaigning! 3) The following measures have been brought up for a vote. Please vote Aye or Nay (or you may abstain). Voting lasts one week. ------------------------------------------------- Official Regional Name Bill 1) The Pacific Region's official name shall henceforth be "The People's Region of the Pacific". 2) Pacific, The Pacific, and the Pacific Region shall remain accepted casual names. Renaming of San Luis Opisbo County Bill 1) San Luis Opisbo County, California shall henceforth be named San Luis Opebo County in honor of Opebo, Atlasia's longest serving Supreme Court Justice. Affirmation of the Pacific Region's Right to Continue Existing Bill 1) The people of the Pacific Region vow to oppose any efforts to abolish or reduce their region. Official Regional Plant Bill 1) Cannabis shall be the official regional plant of the Pacific effective immediately. Government Furniture Bill 1) The Pacific Regional Government shall not purchase any furniture made with leather or any other product derived from the slaughter of animals effective immediately. School Bus Bill 1) All public school buses in the Pacific Region must be repainted neon green effective August 1, 2009. Salad Bar Bill 1) All public schools in the Pacific Region with at least 300 students must equip their cafeterias with a full-service salad bar by the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year in order to provide and encourage healthy eating choices. Affirmative Action Ban Repeal Bill The Affirmative Action Bill is hereby repealed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 15, 2009, 01:06:30 AM Official Regional Name Bill: Aye
Renaming of San Luis Opisbo County Bill: Aye Affirmation of the Pacific Region's Right to Continue Existing Bill: Aye Official Regional Plant Bill: Aye Government Furniture Bill: Aye School Bus Bill: Aye Salad Bar Bill: Aye Affirmative Action Ban Repeal Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on June 15, 2009, 01:07:49 AM Official Regional Name Bill: Aye
Renaming of San Luis Opisbo County Bill: Aye Affirmation of the Pacific Region's Right to Continue Existing Bill: Aye Official Regional Plant Bill: Aye Government Furniture Bill: Aye School Bus Bill: Aye Salad Bar Bill: Aye Affirmative Action Ban Repeal Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on June 15, 2009, 01:56:14 AM Official Regional Name Bill: Aye
Renaming of San Luis Opisbo County Bill: Aye Affirmation of the Pacific Region's Right to Continue Existing Bill: Aye Official Regional Plant Bill: Aye Government Furniture Bill: Nay School Bus Bill: Nay Salad Bar Bill: Aye Affirmative Action Ban Repeal Bill: Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on June 16, 2009, 01:16:31 AM Official Regional Name Bill: Nay
Renaming of San Luis Opisbo County Bill: Aye Affirmation of the Pacific Region's Right to Continue Existing Bill: Nay Official Regional Plant Bill: Nay Government Furniture Bill: Aye School Bus Bill: Nay Salad Bar Bill: Aye Affirmative Action Ban Repeal Bill: Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 16, 2009, 03:10:42 AM Official Regional Name Bill: Aye
Renaming of San Luis Opisbo County Bill: Aye Affirmation of the Pacific Region's Right to Continue Existing Bill: Nay Official Regional Plant Bill: Nay Government Furniture Bill: Aye School Bus Bill: Aye Salad Bar Bill: Aye Affirmative Action Ban Repeal Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on June 16, 2009, 03:36:28 AM Official Regional Name Bill: Aye
Renaming of San Luis Opisbo County Bill: Abstain Affirmation of the Pacific Region's Right to Continue Existing Bill: Aye Official Regional Plant Bill: Aye Government Furniture Bill: Aye School Bus Bill: Aye (I have no idea why, but neon green is awesome) Salad Bar Bill: Aye Affirmative Action Ban Repeal Bill: Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 21, 2009, 10:04:50 AM Nay to all, just because.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 29, 2009, 01:15:00 AM ^You voted too late!
Renaming of Jackson County, Oregon 1) The Pacific Regions recognizes that Andrew Jackson was a genocidal maniac, and that such a person should not have a Pacifican county named after him. 2) Therefore Jackson County, Oregon is hereby renamed after the King of Pop, Michael Jackson. X Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on July 11, 2009, 07:56:18 PM Official Regional Name Bill: 5-1 PASS
Renaming of San Luis Opisbo County Bill: 5-0-1 PASS Affirmation of the Pacific Region's Right to Continue Existing Bill: 4-2 PASS Official Regional Plant Bill: 4-2 PASS Government Furniture Bill: 5-1 PASS School Bus Bill: 4-2 PASS Salad Bar Bill: 6-0 PASS Affirmative Action Ban Repeal Bill: 3-3 VETO -Governor CultureKing Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on July 11, 2009, 08:05:38 PM Also an announcement:
I am investing my powers as governor to the Lt. Governor of the Pacific should I not act in a timely manner in the coming months. After two weeks at my summer job as a camp counselor I realized that I will at times not be able to log on for prolonged periods of time, I only get two hours off a day and I have decided to shower and get rest before instead of using the internet... Though it should be better in the future as now I have got the hang of the job a bit more. Thank you for being patient. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 11, 2009, 07:45:50 PM General Sales Tax Elimination Bill
1. That no General Sales Tax may be applied, including food items, goods, and services. 2. That certain “excise taxes” be allowed, including cigarette, cannabis, and gasoline taxes. 3. That this bill shall be paid for by a .5 percent income tax increase on top bracket earners. 4. That the remainder of this bill be funded by a 3.5 percent flight surcharge to be added to the purchase of air travel. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 11, 2009, 07:49:11 PM This bill I introduce does many things right. It encourages commerce by giving consumers more purchasing power. It adds jobs by creating new demand for goods. It allows people with lower incomes to be able to purchase more than they could before, and live a better life. And the costs are covered by measures that will not very much affect the economy- air travel will continue regardless and the slight income tax increase is only on top earners, most of which would have been going towards savings or investing rather than spending into the economy. In these economic times, we need more consumers to encourage productivity. I highly urge fellow citizens of the People's Region of the Pacific to sign on as sponsors and support this bill.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 11, 2009, 08:22:37 PM Signed into law on October 13, 2008:
Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act 1. The sales tax on food and grocery items is hereby abolished. 2. The sales tax on books is hereby abolished. 3. The provisions of this act will take effect two weeks after this becomes law. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 11, 2009, 09:11:30 PM Signed into law on October 13, 2008: Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act 1. The sales tax on food and grocery items is hereby abolished. 2. The sales tax on books is hereby abolished. 3. The provisions of this act will take effect two weeks after this becomes law. This is a general sales tax elimination. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 11, 2009, 09:15:01 PM Signed into law on October 13, 2008: Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act 1. The sales tax on food and grocery items is hereby abolished. 2. The sales tax on books is hereby abolished. 3. The provisions of this act will take effect two weeks after this becomes law. This is a general sales tax elimination. I'm aware of that, and no one has yet explained the necessity of such an idea. Most of the sales taxes which directly affect poor the most have long been nonexistent in the Pacific Region. Of course I had also hoped to remove sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol products - some of the most regressive taxation we have - but you are not supportive of removing those sorts of sales taxes. So forgive me if I have trouble accepting that you want to completely abolish the sales tax solely to help the poor. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 11, 2009, 09:17:28 PM Signed into law on October 13, 2008: Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act 1. The sales tax on food and grocery items is hereby abolished. 2. The sales tax on books is hereby abolished. 3. The provisions of this act will take effect two weeks after this becomes law. This is a general sales tax elimination. I'm aware of that, and no one has yet explained the necessity of such an idea. Most of the sales taxes which directly affect poor the most have long been nonexistent in the Pacific Region. Of course I had also hoped to remove sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol products - some of the most regressive taxation we have - but you are not supportive of removing those sorts of sales taxes. So forgive me if I have trouble accepting that you want to completely abolish the sales tax solely to help the poor. I think I argued a lot more than "solely" that one point. The proposition has received much support from both parties and will be helpful to the Pacific region. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 11, 2009, 09:19:43 PM The proposition has received much support from both parties and will be helpful to the Pacific region. Are you and I talking about the same proposition? Because the one you suggested above is about as coherent as the hopes and dreams of a dead squirrel. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on August 11, 2009, 09:52:09 PM The new proposition will only help rich persons, since that will delete the sales tax on expensive items.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 11, 2009, 09:54:04 PM The new proposition will only help rich persons, since that will delete the sales tax on expensive items. I don't think that you honestly beleive it will "only" help rich persons. Also, you have to consider that the median "rich" person spends far less percentages of their income than the median "poor" person. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 11, 2009, 09:56:15 PM No, this is very simple. The sorts of sales tax which would disproportionately affect the poor have already been removed. By proposing to remove the rest of them, (i.e. the sales tax on yachts, cars, perfume, etc) you in fact disproportionately help the rich.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 12, 2009, 06:42:33 PM Bee Crisis Resolution 1. Our region will recognize honeybees (genus: Apis) as keystone species that must be protected from CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) 2. The Pacific region will fund research and development of anti-parasitical (V. destructor) drugs to be provided to the region’s beekeepers. 3. The chemical Imidacloprid is henceforth banned in the Pacific region. 4. The region will implement a planting program for pollen-producing goldenrod (Solidago virgaurea). 5. The destruction of any bee colony or bee hive will result in a fine of no less than $5,000. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 12, 2009, 06:44:27 PM This bill attacks the forefront causes of the destuction of important honeybees in our region, a significant problem facing our large agricultural industry. Bees are essential to the pollenation of many plants, and the rapid decline in populations recently is appalling. Hopefully some fellow Pacific citizens recognize this atrocity and will work with me by either signing on this measure or adding to it as a means of improvement. Thank you. Hamilton
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 13, 2009, 12:33:52 PM I note that this region is undergoing a totally innocent population boom.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on August 13, 2009, 01:50:57 PM I note that this region is undergoing a totally innocent population boom. Perhaps the recent excitement will spur the legislature to be more active? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Hash on August 13, 2009, 05:39:22 PM I note that this region is undergoing a totally innocent population boom. Perhaps the recent excitement will spur the legislature to be more active? I'm sure the drones will be active, as always! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on August 13, 2009, 08:31:13 PM I note that this region is undergoing a totally innocent population boom. Perhaps the recent excitement will spur the legislature to be more active? I'm sure the drones will be active, as always! Well, he needs to act like they are not drones and than they will be active, since he will need RPP votes to be reelected. He panders to them since a while, while denying it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on August 13, 2009, 08:39:20 PM I note that this region is undergoing a totally innocent population boom. Perhaps the recent excitement will spur the legislature to be more active? I'm sure the drones will be active, as always! Well, he needs to act like they are not drones and than they will be active, since he will need RPP votes to be reelected. He panders to them since a while, while denying it. Is this like your new thing Max? Lord almighty. Has the JCP taken on some concerted effort to run a negative campaign against me? Or is it just Marokai and Max? Fritz had fallen into doing it at one point, but he stopped when he realized how silly it is. But seriously Max, I'm more than willing to see you prove how I have attempted to curry favor with one party any more than the others. The truth is, you're just grasping at straws. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on August 13, 2009, 09:03:37 PM I note that this region is undergoing a totally innocent population boom. Perhaps the recent excitement will spur the legislature to be more active? I'm sure the drones will be active, as always! Well, he needs to act like they are not drones and than they will be active, since he will need RPP votes to be reelected. He panders to them since a while, while denying it. Is this like your new thing Max? Lord almighty. Has the JCP taken on some concerted effort to run a negative campaign against me? Or is it just Marokai and Max? Fritz had fallen into doing it at one point, but he stopped when he realized how silly it is. But seriously Max, I'm more than willing to see you prove how I have attempted to curry favor with one party any more than the others. The truth is, you're just grasping at straws. I hve nothing against you and I don't want your defeat. Just stop to deny the reality about some of the new voters. Someone quoting posts without adding any substance to reach 50 posts and register is suspicious. Having three RPPers registering the same night in the Pacific is suspicious, especially just before an election. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 16, 2009, 02:27:51 AM AIDS Prevention Act Funding Extension
1. In accordance with the AIDS Prevention Act, whereby funding was only committed to FY 2008, the Pacific Government pledges $10 million towards condom distribution programs effective FY 2010. 2. The Pacific Government pledges $10 million towards needle exchange programs effective FY 2010. x Ebowed Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 16, 2009, 02:30:07 AM Where is the money coming from?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 16, 2009, 02:34:21 AM Where is the money coming from? From that fantastic budget surplus we have always had. ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 16, 2009, 02:44:35 AM Where is the money coming from? From that fantastic budget surplus we have always had. ;D I'd like to see some real funding data, perhaps an outline of this budget and where funds will be allocated from. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 16, 2009, 02:50:26 AM I'd like to see some real funding data, lol, and do what with it? Stare at it for a couple minutes? perhaps an outline of this budget and where funds will be allocated from. An interesting view given that you proposed a bill to fund research into medicine for bees. (Notably, without determining how much funding this research would receive.) Funds, of course, will be allocated from tax revenue, like any other spending proposal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on August 16, 2009, 08:29:05 PM Once GM I will be giving you all the information on your regional economic outlook at some point, hopefully in the first week or two. Until then you will have to guess.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: California8429 on August 21, 2009, 06:55:06 PM I'd like to see some real funding data, lol, and do what with it? Stare at it for a couple minutes? perhaps an outline of this budget and where funds will be allocated from. An interesting view given that you proposed a bill to fund research into medicine for bees. (Notably, without determining how much funding this research would receive.) Funds, of course, will be allocated from tax revenue, like any other spending proposal. I'd like to see funding put into how to actually stop AIDS and prevent it in the first place. I know the answer is simple, but that doesn't stop Africa. And now all their kids will possibly carry it too Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 26, 2009, 05:29:27 PM I'm reintroducing this with some changes taken into account from my discussion with Hamilton, and since we finally have our Governor. :)
Quote Pacific Deficit Reduction Act: 1. The income tax rate on the bracket created by the Income Tax Increase Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Income_Tax_Increase_Act) will be raised by 3%. 2. The income tax rate on incomes exceeding $300,000 will be raised by 1%. 3. The sales tax on books, which was abolished by the Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Reduction_of_Regressive_Taxation_Act), shall be reinstated. 4. Schools purchasing books for educational material and individuals purchasing books for resell shall be exempt from the sales tax. 5. The provisions in this Act shall take effect on the 30th of September to coincide with the initial receiving of stimulus funds. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 26, 2009, 07:55:50 PM remove item 3 and i will support
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 26, 2009, 07:59:19 PM remove item 3 and i will support I see no reason to ban a sales tax on books. You get to the point to where you may as well suggest banning sales taxes on everything, because there's nothing special about books that require protection, unlike something like food, or something that is disproportionately consumed by poor people, such as cigarettes or alcohol. A sales tax on books is not particularly regressive or harmful, and is a constant and broad source or income, as opposed to a targeted income tax hike. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 26, 2009, 08:34:47 PM remove item 3 and i will support I see no reason to ban a sales tax on books. You get to the point to where you may as well suggest banning sales taxes on everything, because there's nothing special about books that require protection, unlike something like food, or something that is disproportionately consumed by poor people, such as cigarettes or alcohol. A sales tax on books is not particularly regressive or harmful, and is a constant and broad source or income, as opposed to a targeted income tax hike. We should do our best to make books more accessible to all ages and incomes. I don't actually think there is a necessity to remove the ban. Taxes on cigarettes I find helpful to the poor in that they discourage consumption, therefore an incentive for quitting, which allows them to spend their income on something else, and for health, as cigarette's are clearly not very healthy. I don't think removing the tax really brings in enough additional revenue to make a positive impact but I'm open to other's suggestions and arguments. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on August 26, 2009, 08:58:04 PM Ugh, I have to start reading this thread now.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 26, 2009, 08:58:42 PM Ugh, I have to start reading this thread now. Hi Governor. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on August 26, 2009, 10:49:37 PM I will oppose any repeal of the ban of sales taxes on books.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on August 26, 2009, 11:26:43 PM remove item 3 and i will support I see no reason to ban a sales tax on books. You get to the point to where you may as well suggest banning sales taxes on everything, because there's nothing special about books that require protection, unlike something like food, or something that is disproportionately consumed by poor people, such as cigarettes or alcohol. A sales tax on books is not particularly regressive or harmful, and is a constant and broad source or income, as opposed to a targeted income tax hike. We should do our best to make books more accessible to all ages and incomes. I don't actually think there is a necessity to remove the ban. Taxes on cigarettes I find helpful to the poor in that they discourage consumption, therefore an incentive for quitting, which allows them to spend their income on something else, and for health, as cigarette's are clearly not very healthy. I don't think removing the tax really brings in enough additional revenue to make a positive impact but I'm open to other's suggestions and arguments. Tobacco taxes are pretty much counting on continued consumption of cigarettes to provide income. They are punishing people for an uncontrollable addiction. Sin taxes are generally not backed up much by the idea that they reduce consumption. What would do much better at that is regulating marketing activities, creating tighter restrictions on companies, etc. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 26, 2009, 11:29:55 PM remove item 3 and i will support I see no reason to ban a sales tax on books. You get to the point to where you may as well suggest banning sales taxes on everything, because there's nothing special about books that require protection, unlike something like food, or something that is disproportionately consumed by poor people, such as cigarettes or alcohol. A sales tax on books is not particularly regressive or harmful, and is a constant and broad source or income, as opposed to a targeted income tax hike. We should do our best to make books more accessible to all ages and incomes. I don't actually think there is a necessity to remove the ban. Taxes on cigarettes I find helpful to the poor in that they discourage consumption, therefore an incentive for quitting, which allows them to spend their income on something else, and for health, as cigarette's are clearly not very healthy. I don't think removing the tax really brings in enough additional revenue to make a positive impact but I'm open to other's suggestions and arguments. Tobacco taxes are pretty much counting on continued consumption of cigarettes to provide income. They are punishing people for an uncontrollable addiction. Sin taxes are generally not backed up much by the idea that they reduce consumption. What would do much better at that is regulating marketing activities, creating tighter restrictions on companies, etc. To be honest, it doesn't matter to me. It has short term benefits of increased revenue witht he long term aim of reduction. We have other means of revenues, excise taxes are a convenient way to kill two birds with one stone over time. Whether they are effective in reducing consumption could probably be debated, but the potential is worth it. Regardless, the clause of removing the book tax ban is not acceptable to me. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 27, 2009, 12:01:03 AM This is silly, books are like any other commodity, if you're going to ban sales taxes on books, take it the next step and abolish all sales taxes.
There's no reason books are more special than any other product. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 27, 2009, 12:04:19 AM This is silly, books are like any other commodity, if you're going to ban sales taxes on books, take it the next step and abolish all sales taxes. There's no reason books are more special than any other product. I don't mind banning sales taxes on all items. But I honestly believe that books are an item that don't deserve to be taxed, publications for that matter, reading is good. Magazines, newspapers, novels, etc. should be encouraged among our citizens. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 27, 2009, 12:07:20 AM My point is that if you're going to exempt something from sales taxes, it has to be because it's a special or important product, or it's disproportionately consumed by a certain group of people. There's no such exceptions for books, which makes the sales tax exemption rather out of place and pointless.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 27, 2009, 12:08:59 AM My point is that if you're going to exempt something from sales taxes, it has to be because it's a special or important product, or it's disproportionately consumed by a certain group of people. There's no such exceptions for books, which makes the sales tax exemption rather out of place and pointless. I would consider books an educational material, possibly all publications could be. Therefore, I consider that a special item to be exempt. You may disagree but as it stands, I'd like to see that clause removed, or work together to find an alternative. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 27, 2009, 12:11:43 AM My point is that if you're going to exempt something from sales taxes, it has to be because it's a special or important product, or it's disproportionately consumed by a certain group of people. There's no such exceptions for books, which makes the sales tax exemption rather out of place and pointless. I would consider books an educational material, possibly all publications could be. Therefore, I consider that a special item to be exempt. You may disagree but as it stands, I'd like to see that clause removed, or work together to find an alternative. Perhaps, but surely we can come to some sort of compromise. Perhaps exempting them from sales taxes when they're used for educational purposes (day care organizations, schools, colleges, etc) similar to the way that food is exempted from sales taxes in certain states if they're bought for businesses. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 27, 2009, 12:14:32 AM My point is that if you're going to exempt something from sales taxes, it has to be because it's a special or important product, or it's disproportionately consumed by a certain group of people. There's no such exceptions for books, which makes the sales tax exemption rather out of place and pointless. I would consider books an educational material, possibly all publications could be. Therefore, I consider that a special item to be exempt. You may disagree but as it stands, I'd like to see that clause removed, or work together to find an alternative. Perhaps, but surely we can come to some sort of compromise. Perhaps exempting them from sales taxes when they're used for educational purposes (day care organizations, schools, colleges, etc) similar to the way that food is exempted from sales taxes in certain states if they're bought for businesses. I would be open to considering that. I would like to see what others have to offer, MaxQue has also stated his dissatisfaction with the clause. I wish there were some way to incorporate children's books into it because I really want to see more kid's reading and owning books but that seems difficult to categorize and is likely more trouble than it's worth. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 27, 2009, 11:14:40 AM Taxes on cigarettes I find helpful to the poor in that they discourage consumption, therefore an incentive for quitting This is one of those really good ideas that has never been proven not to work. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 27, 2009, 11:35:48 AM Taxes on cigarettes I find helpful to the poor in that they discourage consumption, therefore an incentive for quitting This is one of those really good ideas that has never been proven not to work. To be honest, it doesn't matter to me. It has short term benefits of increased revenue witht he long term aim of reduction. We have other means of revenues, excise taxes are a convenient way to kill two birds with one stone over time. Whether they are effective in reducing consumption could probably be debated, but the potential is worth it. Regardless, the clause of removing the book tax ban is not acceptable to me. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 05, 2009, 12:13:02 AM Reintroduced with changes, since we have a new Governor now! Yay!
Quote Pacific Deficit Reduction Act: 1. The income tax rate on the bracket created by the Income Tax Increase Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Income_Tax_Increase_Act) will be raised by 3%. 2. The income tax rate on incomes exceeding $300,000 will be raised by 1%. 3. The sales tax on books, which was abolished by the Reduction of Regressive Taxation Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Reduction_of_Regressive_Taxation_Act), shall be reinstated. 4. Schools purchasing books for educational material and individuals purchasing books for resell shall be exempt from the sales tax. 5. The provisions in this Act shall take effect on the 30th of September to coincide with the initial receiving of stimulus funds. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on September 05, 2009, 11:55:50 PM Still not acceptable.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on September 06, 2009, 12:07:21 AM Indeed, I motion to strike sections 3 & 4.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 06, 2009, 12:27:29 AM There is absolutely no reason to not have a sales tax on books. None
Remove them if you want, but don't expect my vote on it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on September 06, 2009, 01:19:59 AM We could look at lifting the exemption for religious organizations as a way of raising revenue instead.
Sales taxes are regressive, and while I don't mind some of the sales taxes we have on the books, I don't think expanding them is pertinent. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 06, 2009, 06:10:13 AM We could look at lifting the exemption for religious organizations as a way of raising revenue instead. Sales taxes are regressive, and while I don't mind some of the sales taxes we have on the books, I don't think expanding them is pertinent. That's an interesting idea for replacing the book sales tax, although I still need no reason to keep it eliminated. You may as well eliminate the sales tax on CDs, video games, and comics. But in any case, I'm not sure how exactly we'd write that.. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on September 06, 2009, 08:57:47 AM We could look at lifting the exemption for religious organizations as a way of raising revenue instead. Sales taxes are regressive, and while I don't mind some of the sales taxes we have on the books, I don't think expanding them is pertinent. That's an interesting idea for replacing the book sales tax, although I still need no reason to keep it eliminated. You may as well eliminate the sales tax on CDs, video games, and comics. But in any case, I'm not sure how exactly we'd write that.. If you wanted a non-regressive system, you could remove silly sales taxes and put in place a VAT tax on luxury goods. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on September 06, 2009, 10:40:09 AM In my experience books are mostly purchases of the wealthier amongst us. I've never heard of books being described as an item that particularly affects the lower class, nor have I ever really been under the impression that the purchase of books is an essential necessity. People can go to a library if they don't like that tax.
I guess I just don't get the motivation behind it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 07, 2009, 04:45:37 PM Bill Frist Act (technically bill still I suppose)
1) All testing on non-human vertebrate animals is hereby banned in the Pacific Region. 2) Violation of this ban shall result in up to five years in prison and up to one million dollars in fines. X Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 07, 2009, 04:46:18 PM Bill Frist Act 1) All testing on non-human vertebrate animals is hereby banned in the Pacific Region. 2) Violation of this ban shall result in up to five years in prison and up to one million dollars in fines. X Bgwah LOL! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 07, 2009, 04:49:07 PM Bill Frist Act 1) All testing on non-human vertebrate animals is hereby banned in the Pacific Region. 2) Violation of this ban shall result in up to five years in prison and up to one million dollars in fines. X Bgwah x Marokai Blue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on September 07, 2009, 04:56:58 PM Bill Frist Act (technically bill still I suppose) 1) All testing on non-human vertebrate animals is hereby banned in the Pacific Region. 2) Violation of this ban shall result in up to five years in prison and up to one million dollars in fines. X Bgwah x Alcon, snarky name aside Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 07, 2009, 05:26:31 PM I'm not really posting as my fantasy self here...
In my experience books are mostly purchases of the wealthier amongst us. This situation will not improve if you artificially increase their price. Quote I've never heard of books being described as an item that particularly affects the lower class, That's quite an elitist (no, I mean actually elitist, not "elitist" in the sense it's often used in American political discourse post-1968 or so) statement, though you probably don't realise it. But read it again, and out of context, and you might. The point is that books and reading ought not be restricted to certain social classes, that literacy is (or at least ought to be) a gateway to self-education and self-improvement and that a tax on books is (as the campaign against the Thatcher government's attempt to remove books from 0% VAT put it) a "tax on knowledge". Of course if you go even further back - one of the traditional calling-cards of a certain sort of reactionary regime was a tax on books and newspapers (guess why). Making the situation even worse than it is (I remember reading an estimate on how many Americans read books on a regular basis and being pretty shocked) in order to fight the deficit is an unusual action for a liberal-ish government to take. Besides, you'd get more money from taxing luxury goods. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 07, 2009, 05:33:22 PM I'm not really posting as my fantasy self here... In my experience books are mostly purchases of the wealthier amongst us. This situation will not improve if you artificially increase their price. Quote I've never heard of books being described as an item that particularly affects the lower class, That's quite an elitist (no, I mean actually elitist, not "elitist" in the sense it's often used in American political discourse post-1968 or so) statement, though you probably don't realise it. But read it again, and out of context, and you might. The point is that books and reading ought not be restricted to certain social classes, that literacy is (or at least ought to be) a gateway to self-education and self-improvement and that a tax on books is (as the campaign against the Thatcher government's attempt to remove books from 0% VAT put it) a "tax on knowledge". Of course if you go even further back - one of the traditional calling-cards of a certain sort of reactionary regime was a tax on books and newspapers (guess why). Making the situation even worse than it is (I remember reading an estimate on how many Americans read books on a regular basis and being pretty shocked) in order to fight the deficit is an unusual action for a liberal-ish government to take. Besides, you'd get more money from taxing luxury goods. I atually agree with everything you said, and it's something I fought for. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 07, 2009, 05:35:13 PM How could a tax on luxury goods be written?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 07, 2009, 05:36:16 PM How could a tax on luxury goods be written? Raising income taxes for the rich. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: tmthforu94 on September 07, 2009, 05:37:15 PM Bill Frist Act (technically bill still I suppose) 1) All testing on non-human vertebrate animals is hereby banned in the Pacific Region. 2) Violation of this ban shall result in up to five years in prison and up to one million dollars in fines. X Bgwah Brilliant. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 07, 2009, 05:44:18 PM How could a tax on luxury goods be written? Define what "luxury goods" are, work out an appropriate rate, and tax them. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on September 07, 2009, 06:20:10 PM This situation will not improve if you artificially increase their price. My point was that this tax increase would mostly affect the rich amongst us - I wasn't making a commentary on the market affect of having such a tax. However, since you brought it up, it's modifying the price by at best a few cents. A price difference like that is not why the poor don't read books (or why those who already read them won't). And amongst that small portion of the population that reads books regularly and would stop buying books (as such a group hypothetically exists when talking about a tax increase in this manner), they can always go to a library. My bottom line is that if we want the lower class to start reading more there are about a dozen better solutions I can think of while all the while collecting this tax which comes, mostly, from the wealthy. That's quite an elitist (no, I mean actually elitist, not "elitist" in the sense it's often used in American political discourse post-1968 or so) statement, though you probably don't realise it. But read it again, and out of context, and you might. Again, my point was only that the lower class doesn't purchase books at a higher rate than other classes do. It's the truth whether you want to admit it or not. The point is that books and reading ought not be restricted to certain social classes, that literacy is (or at least ought to be) a gateway to self-education and self-improvement and that a tax on books is (as the campaign against the Thatcher government's attempt to remove books from 0% VAT put it) a "tax on knowledge". Of course if you go even further back - one of the traditional calling-cards of a certain sort of reactionary regime was a tax on books and newspapers (guess why). Making the situation even worse than it is (I remember reading an estimate on how many Americans read books on a regular basis and being pretty shocked) in order to fight the deficit is an unusual action for a liberal-ish government to take. Again, as I said earlier, if our goal is to get the lower class reading more books - or educate them more over all - this isn't the best solution. Sure it will help to some extent, but there's also other benefits to imposing the tax that outweigh those benefits to the lower class. If we're really interested in improving reading rates amongst the lower class we should look at other types of programs. And we're not denying anyone access to a book. They need only go to a library and check one out (which, actually, makes far more sense than buying a book in the first place in my opinion). And to apply your argument as a whole even further, there are a lot of products that are socially beneficial to the poor besides books that we should, under this theory, not taxed. I understand and generally sympathize with the point you're making, but ultimately we have to tax something in order to collect revenue and in my opinion that tax base should include books. I can see the benefits of not doing it as you've articulated; I'm just not convinced the loss of revenue (or lack of increase in this case) is worth it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on September 07, 2009, 11:58:49 PM Just wanted to let you all know I am paying attention to you. I'm hoping at least one region can act on budget reports I put out.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on September 08, 2009, 01:30:22 AM How could a tax on luxury goods be written? I would assume that we already have one, if we only removed the sales tax on food, groceries and books. Unfortunately I couldn't tell you the tax rate - might be worth checking the Arizona law code I was waiting for Al to show up in this thread, btw :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2009, 01:55:38 AM can we plz vote on the Bill Frist Bill now? :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Vepres on September 13, 2009, 10:28:46 PM Just wanted to let you all know I am paying attention to you. I'm hoping at least one region can act on budget reports I put out. If my tax code were to pass, what would the budget be? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on September 13, 2009, 10:59:59 PM Just wanted to let you all know I am paying attention to you. I'm hoping at least one region can act on budget reports I put out. If my tax code were to pass, what would the budget be? Not really sure why this is in the Pacific Legislature thread, but the tax code would increase revenues in the region and go a good way towards closing your budget deficit. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on September 20, 2009, 09:43:43 AM Voting is now open on the following:
Bill Frist Bill 1) All testing on non-human vertebrate animals is hereby banned in the Pacific Region. 2) Violation of this ban shall result in up to five years in prison and up to one million dollars in fines. Voting closes in exactly one week. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on September 20, 2009, 04:06:56 PM Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 20, 2009, 05:50:53 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on September 21, 2009, 12:06:09 AM Bill Frist Bill: Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on September 21, 2009, 04:58:59 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on September 22, 2009, 11:49:04 AM Nay.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on September 22, 2009, 12:00:05 PM Why do you all hate cute, wittle aminals?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on September 22, 2009, 12:04:52 PM Why do you all hate cute, wittle aminals? a. It provides a strong disincentive for scientists to conduct research in the Pacific Region. b. The wording is broad and ambiguous (how would this affect veterinarians?). c. The penalty is too harsh. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Rob on September 22, 2009, 06:25:56 PM Bill Frist Act: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 22, 2009, 06:28:03 PM Rather difficult vote for me to cast, but I have to agree with Ebowed's assessment..
Nay. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 22, 2009, 09:12:55 PM "MeeeOUCH, plz vote Aye :( :'("
() Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 22, 2009, 09:18:44 PM I would support a more restricted ban, but this one goes too far.
But I promise to take good care of my kitties in the mean time. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: All Along The Watchtower on September 29, 2009, 02:51:39 AM Nay on the Bill Frist Act.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on September 29, 2009, 11:25:26 PM Getting back to taxes...
Pacific Deficit Reduction Act: 1. The income tax rate on the bracket created by the Income Tax Increase Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Income_Tax_Increase_Act) will be raised by 4.5%. 2. The income tax rate on incomes exceeding $300,000 will be raised by 2%. 3.The provisions in this Act shall take effect on the 15th of October. (We could also consider raising the estate tax if this isn't enough) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on September 29, 2009, 11:55:55 PM Nay taxes are Gay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 11:57:14 PM Nay taxes are Gay what can i say? cant have every single thing your way :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on September 30, 2009, 12:10:10 AM I'll re-introduce this just to gauge public opinion...
Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act 1. The possible sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is hereby abolished. 2. Statute outlining the sentence abolished above shall be amended to read "life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty years." and this... Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act 1. Any regional and local laws to prohibit the sale, possession, consumption, distribution, or manufacture of alkyl nitrites ("poppers") are repealed. 2. Sale of alkyl nitrites to persons under the age of 18 will remain illegal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on September 30, 2009, 02:28:53 AM Nay taxes are Gay what can i say? cant have every single thing your way :P Yo hey, let me say, please go away Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 30, 2009, 02:30:24 AM Nay taxes are Gay what can i say? cant have every single thing your way :P Yo hey, let me say, please go away No way These games I won't play Let me have my say Today Okay? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on September 30, 2009, 02:56:55 AM ur gay
lol only in L.A. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 30, 2009, 02:59:01 AM ur gay lol only in L.A. NOT NICE TO SAY! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Lunar on September 30, 2009, 03:03:56 AM jean baptiste pierre antoine de monet
(pwned) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 30, 2009, 05:18:11 AM jean baptiste pierre antoine de monet (pwned) man i knew i left this region for a reason! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 30, 2009, 09:31:31 PM jean baptiste pierre antoine de monet (pwned) man i knew i left this region for a reason! Easier to win elsewhere? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 30, 2009, 09:32:58 PM jean baptiste pierre antoine de monet (pwned) man i knew i left this region for a reason! Easier to win elsewhere? No. The Northeast and Mideast are just better regions. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on October 01, 2009, 12:58:50 AM I am quite enjoying Lunar's (semi?) return to Atlasia. Definitely nice to have one of the better and funnier posters on the forum livening things up.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 01, 2009, 05:55:30 AM Getting back to taxes... Pacific Deficit Reduction Act: 1. The income tax rate on the bracket created by the Income Tax Increase Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Income_Tax_Increase_Act) will be raised by 4.5%. 2. The income tax rate on incomes exceeding $300,000 will be raised by 2%. 3.The provisions in this Act shall take effect on the 15th of October. (We could also consider raising the estate tax if this isn't enough) If the first is lowered to 3.5% instead of 4.5% (that is a bit steep) then I could support it, although I still see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't tax books. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 04, 2009, 12:40:11 PM Pacific Deficit Reduction Act
1. The income tax rate on the bracket created by the Income Tax Increase Act will be raised by 3.5%. 2. The income tax rate on incomes exceeding $300,000 will be raised by 2%. 3. The provisions in this Act shall take effect on the 15th of October. As for not taxing books, well, I just feel that expanding regressive taxes would be unwise at this point in time. We could always just vote on two separate bills, one which would re-instate the sales tax on books, and one which would have a slightly higher income tax increase. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sbane on October 04, 2009, 01:57:37 PM What are the current tax rates? How progressive are the tax rates already?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 06, 2009, 05:32:05 AM What are the current tax rates? How progressive are the tax rates already? The tax rate being referred into in the first clause is a tax of 45.5% on income exceeding $50 million. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sbane on October 06, 2009, 05:33:36 AM Pacific Deficit Reduction Act
1. The income tax rate on the bracket created by the Income Tax Increase Act will be raised by 3.5%. 2. The income tax rate on incomes exceeding $300,000 will be raised by 2%. 3. The provisions in this Act shall take effect on the 15th of October. Nay Are we even voting on these next two? Well here's how I would vote. Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act 1. The possible sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is hereby abolished. 2. Statute outlining the sentence abolished above shall be amended to read "life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty years." NAY Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act 1. Any regional and local laws to prohibit the sale, possession, consumption, distribution, or manufacture of alkyl nitrites ("poppers") are repealed. 2. Sale of alkyl nitrites to persons under the age of 18 will remain illegal. AYE Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sbane on October 06, 2009, 05:34:58 AM What are the current tax rates? How progressive are the tax rates already? The tax rate being referred into in the first clause is a tax of 45.5% on income exceeding $50 million. And what is the existing tax rate for income exceeding $300,000? Or is there nothing specified? Anyways I would still vote no. I would be interested in raising the estate tax though. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 06, 2009, 05:45:12 AM Voting hasn't been opened on anything yet. I have no idea what the present tax rate on income exceeding $300,000 is - a stab in the dark here is that the Pacific Region's income tax rates (excepting the new rate of 45.5% on income exceeding $50 million) happen to be the same as those of the real-life state of Arizona. Which, if this is true, should probably be modified extensively to suit the progressive whims of this legislature.
Our estate tax law since August 2007 states as follows: Quote 2. Each portion of the value of the estate shall be taxed at the following rates, with each rate corresponding to the tax rate on only the portion of the estate that falls in the appointed range: a) $0-$2,000,000 – 0% b) $2,000,001-$4,000,000 – 3% c) $4,000,001-$9,000,000 – 5% d) $9,000,001-$15,500,000 – 7.5% e) $15,500,001-$22,000,000 – 10% f) $22,000,001-$45,000,000 – 12.5% g) $45,000,001-$75,000,000 – 15% h) $75,000,001-$100,000,000 – 18.5% i) $100,000,001 and above – 25% j) Farmers' non-residential property shall be taxed at 50% the normal tax rate. This, I believe, is likely in addition to the federal estate tax rate, which according to F.L. 22-1 is: Quote Each portion of the value of the estate shall be taxed at the following rates, with each rate corresponding to the tax rate on only the portion of the estate that falls in the appointed range: a) $0-$5,000,000 – 0% b) $5,000,001-$20,000,000 – 10% c) $20,000,001-$50,000,000 – 20% d) $50,000,001 and above – 40% e) Farmers' non-residential property shall be taxed at 50% the normal tax rate above $10,000,000. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 12, 2009, 05:41:49 PM *Whistles*
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 12, 2009, 10:10:01 PM I think y'all need to take 30 seconds to read the Pacific Constitution's legislature section. Signatures are required for a vote. You guys aren't even signing your own legislation.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 12, 2009, 10:30:38 PM I think y'all need to take 30 seconds to read the Pacific Constitution's legislature section. Signatures are required for a vote. You guys aren't even signing your own legislation. The Governor can side-step those silly signature regulations simply by just bringing it up. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 12, 2009, 11:44:19 PM I think y'all need to take 30 seconds to read the Pacific Constitution's legislature section. Signatures are required for a vote. You guys aren't even signing your own legislation. The Governor can side-step those silly signature regulations simply by just bringing it up. Not quite. The Governor can sign it and then a vote can be held no earlier than 24 hours later. Trust me, I became quite familiar with Pacifican law after being Governor for so long. ;D And from what I recall, all current proposals have now expired, not getting the required signatures in time. You can re-propose them, though... :) And really, just PM the guy. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 17, 2009, 05:20:46 PM Humane Farming Practices Bill
1) It shall be illegal to slaughter farm animals while they are still conscious. 2) Any farm found to be violating this rule due to negligence will be fined at least $10,000 and up to $1,000,000, depending on the scale and severity of the violation. 3) Any farm found to be purposely violating this rule (such as but not limited to an attempt to sell kosher meats) shall be fined up to $5,000,000 and shut down. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Vepres on October 17, 2009, 05:28:13 PM Humane Farming Practices Bill 1) It shall be illegal to slaughter farm animals while they are still conscious. 2) Any farm found to be violating this rule due to negligence will be fined at least $10,000 and up to $1,000,000, depending on the scale and severity of the violation. 3) Any farm found to be purposely violating this rule (such as but not limited to an attempt to sell kosher meats) shall be fined up to $5,000,000 and shut down. Damn socialist! ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 17, 2009, 09:08:56 PM They can import their meat.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on October 17, 2009, 09:29:03 PM They can import their meat. You are displacing countless processing plants, forcing them to close down and layoff workers. This will also increase the price of kosher and halal meat/poultry in the Pacific. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 17, 2009, 09:49:02 PM They can import their meat. You are displacing countless processing plants, forcing them to close down and layoff workers. This will also increase the price of kosher and halal meat/poultry in the Pacific. That is no excuse. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 17, 2009, 10:32:25 PM Humane Farming Practices Bill 1) It shall be illegal to slaughter farm animals while they are still conscious. 2) Any farm found to be violating this rule due to negligence will be fined at least $10,000 and up to $1,000,000, depending on the scale and severity of the violation. 3) Any farm found to be purposely violating this rule (such as but not limited to an attempt to sell kosher meats) shall be fined up to $5,000,000 and shut down. X Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 17, 2009, 10:40:40 PM I'll sign it just to move it forward.
x Marokai Blue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 17, 2009, 10:56:11 PM Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act 1. The possible sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is hereby abolished. 2. Statute outlining the sentence abolished above shall be amended to read "life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty years." x Ebowed Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Act 1. Any regional and local laws to prohibit the sale, possession, consumption, distribution, or manufacture of alkyl nitrites ("poppers") are repealed. 2. Sale of alkyl nitrites to persons under the age of 18 will remain illegal. x Ebowed Humane Farming Practices Bill 1) It shall be illegal to slaughter farm animals while they are still conscious. 2) Any farm found to be violating this rule due to negligence will be fined at least $10,000 and up to $1,000,000, depending on the scale and severity of the violation. 3) Any farm found to be purposely violating this rule (such as but not limited to an attempt to sell kosher meats) shall be fined up to $5,000,000 and shut down. x Ebowed Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 17, 2009, 10:57:54 PM X Bgwah to both of Ebowed's bills above
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 17, 2009, 11:37:21 PM Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act 1. The possible sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is hereby abolished. 2. Statute outlining the sentence abolished above shall be amended to read "life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty years." x Ebowed x Marokai Blue But I decline to sign the other. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sewer on October 17, 2009, 11:42:48 PM Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act 1. The possible sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is hereby abolished. 2. Statute outlining the sentence abolished above shall be amended to read "life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty years." what is this i dont even Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 22, 2009, 12:44:43 AM Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act 1. The possible sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is hereby abolished. 2. Statute outlining the sentence abolished above shall be amended to read "life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty years." what is this i dont even Eh, keeping every 70 year old who committed a serious crime 45 years ago in jail is kind of a waste of money. All this does is give them the possibility of parole twenty years into the sentence. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on October 22, 2009, 02:15:20 AM In case you all haven't figured this out yet, I'm a horrible governor. I'll try my best to get to this within a few days but no real promises.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 22, 2009, 02:21:37 AM In case you all haven't figured this out yet, I'm a horrible governor. I'll try my best to get to this within a few days but no real promises. You take us as stupid? You rival Daniel Adams. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 22, 2009, 03:25:22 AM I'm just going to reintroduce this:
Quote Pacific Deficit Reduction Act 1. The income tax rate on the bracket created by the Income Tax Increase Act will be raised by 3.5%. 2. The income tax rate on incomes exceeding $300,000 will be raised by 2%. 3. The provisions in this Act shall take effect on January 1st, 2010. Working on a proposal to distribute the money recently sliced up between the regions would be appropriate as well at some point. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on October 22, 2009, 09:29:00 AM In case you all haven't figured this out yet, I'm a horrible governor. I'll try my best to get to this within a few days but no real promises. You take us as stupid? You rival Daniel Adams. And yet I'd still crush you in an election. How does that make you feel? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 22, 2009, 10:11:40 AM In case you all haven't figured this out yet, I'm a horrible governor. I'll try my best to get to this within a few days but no real promises. You take us as stupid? You rival Daniel Adams. And yet I'd still crush you in an election. How does that make you feel? Makes me feel like Atlasia is truly ridiculous. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on October 22, 2009, 10:14:23 AM In case you all haven't figured this out yet, I'm a horrible governor. I'll try my best to get to this within a few days but no real promises. You take us as stupid? You rival Daniel Adams. And yet I'd still crush you in an election. How does that make you feel? Makes me feel like Atlasia is truly ridiculous. Yes. We're the ones who are ridiculous. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on October 22, 2009, 08:32:44 PM Please vote aye or nay on the following pieces of legislation. Voting closes in exactly one week.
Humane Farming Practices Bill 1) It shall be illegal to slaughter farm animals while they are still conscious. 2) Any farm found to be violating this rule due to negligence will be fined at least $10,000 and up to $1,000,000, depending on the scale and severity of the violation. 3) Any farm found to be purposely violating this rule (such as but not limited to an attempt to sell kosher meats) shall be fined up to $5,000,000 and shut down. Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act 1. The possible sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is hereby abolished. 2. Statute outlining the sentence abolished above shall be amended to read "life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after twenty years." Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 22, 2009, 08:36:30 PM Aye to both!
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: tmthforu94 on October 22, 2009, 09:07:39 PM Both of those bills are brilliant. Hopefully the Mideast can introduce similar bills.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 22, 2009, 11:21:54 PM Humane Farming Practices Bill: Aye
Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on October 25, 2009, 12:42:26 AM Both of those bills are brilliant. Hopefully the Mideast can introduce similar bills. What? No. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 25, 2009, 12:48:38 AM Humane Farming Practices Bill: Abstain
Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 25, 2009, 12:51:08 AM I'm just going to reintroduce this: Quote Pacific Deficit Reduction Act 1. The income tax rate on the bracket created by the Income Tax Increase Act will be raised by 3.5%. 2. The income tax rate on incomes exceeding $300,000 will be raised by 2%. 3. The provisions in this Act shall take effect on January 1st, 2010. Working on a proposal to distribute the money recently sliced up between the regions would be appropriate as well at some point. Oh and: x Marokai Blue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on October 25, 2009, 01:01:54 AM Humane Farming Practices Bill: Nay
Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on October 25, 2009, 01:34:56 AM aye on the first
blank on the second Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on October 25, 2009, 10:27:36 PM No on both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on October 27, 2009, 06:39:10 PM Aye to both
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 04, 2009, 04:56:03 AM I'm just going to reintroduce this: Quote Pacific Deficit Reduction Act 1. The income tax rate on the bracket created by the Income Tax Increase Act will be raised by 3.5%. 2. The income tax rate on incomes exceeding $300,000 will be raised by 2%. 3. The provisions in this Act shall take effect on January 1st, 2010. x Marokai Blue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on November 04, 2009, 05:11:14 PM I've been trying to help you out!
The previous legislative votes could also use certification. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 04, 2009, 07:59:37 PM oh fine I'll sign ur bill
X Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 04, 2009, 08:07:57 PM x Ebowed on Pacific Deficit Reduction Act
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on November 08, 2009, 03:22:25 AM The Humane Farming Practices Bill has passed 4-2-1.
X Governor Meeker The Abolition of Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Act has passed 5-1-1 X Governor Meeker Voting is now open on the following: Pacific Deficit Reduction Act 1. The income tax rate on the bracket created by the Income Tax Increase Act will be raised by 3.5%. 2. The income tax rate on incomes exceeding $300,000 will be raised by 2%. 3. The provisions in this Act shall take effect on January 1st, 2010 Voting closes in exactly one week. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 08, 2009, 03:26:41 AM Pacific Deficit Reduction Act: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 08, 2009, 03:43:00 AM Pacific Deficit Reduction Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on November 08, 2009, 05:45:38 AM Deficit: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 08, 2009, 03:53:19 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on November 16, 2009, 03:22:28 AM The Pacific Deficit Reduction Act has passed 4-0.
X Governor Meeker I want everyone's thoughts on moving the thread to the main board instead of here in the voting booth. Placing it here keeps it out of sight and out of mind for a lot of people and I think moving it could really help increase activity. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 16, 2009, 03:31:24 AM The Pacific Deficit Reduction Act has passed 4-0. X Governor Meeker I want everyone's thoughts on moving the thread to the main board instead of here in the voting booth. Placing it here keeps it out of sight and out of mind for a lot of people and I think moving it could really help increase activity. Oh absolutely, I've supported that for months. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 16, 2009, 04:06:47 AM On the other hand it could more easily fall off the first page.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on November 18, 2009, 12:06:38 AM On the other hand it could more easily fall off the first page. The current situation is like keeping it on the last page. You only go there if you know what is there already. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 27, 2009, 05:54:52 PM Well I guess I would be okay with moving the thread. I'm sure all Meeker would have to do is PM MJ or Gustaf?
In the mean time, I would like to propose the following: Renaming of Jackson County Bill 1) Whereas Andrew Jackson was a genocidal maniac who did not share the values of the Pacific Region and does not deserve the honor of a Pacific county named after him. 2) Therefore Jackson County, Oregon shall be renamed in honor of the recently deceased entertainer and long-time resident of the Pacific Region Michael Jackson. X Bgwah Legislature Amendment 1) Section 1:3 of Article II shall be amended to read "A referendum on each bill shall begin at a time determined by the Governor (but not more than one month after it obtains the required signatures) and shall remain open for one week." X Bgwah To see what is being amended, go here: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution#Section_1:_Legislation Currently there are some technicalities with how our legislature works that I think we should streamline. Sure, we could just pretend they don't exist, but as we've seen in the Southeast Region that can become a problem. There would be no silly one day waiting period anymore. This basically allows the Governor to immediately open any proposed legislation with a simple signature and would hopefully make it easier and faster to get legislation voted on... The Governor still has the option of not signing the legislation. In that case, three citizens can still get it voted on if three of them sign it. I'm leaving this option for the Governor just as a safe-guard. Hypothetically speaking, some moronic troll could just come in and propose 100 pieces of stupid legislation--I want to make sure we can just ignore something like that if necessary. I'm guessing any Governor would go ahead and allow the vast majority of legislation to be voted on. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 27, 2009, 06:02:41 PM Renaming of Jackson County Bill: x Marokai Blue
Legislature Amendment: x Marokai Blue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 27, 2009, 08:23:37 PM Renaming of Jackson County Bill: x Ebowed
Legislature Amendment: x Ebowed Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 28, 2009, 10:16:42 PM I would likely to slightly modify my amendment:
Legislature Amendment 1) Section 1:3 of Article II shall be amended to read "A referendum on each bill shall begin at a time determined by the Governor (but not more than one month after it obtains the required signatures) and shall remain open for one week." 2) Section 3:3 of Article II shall be amended to read "A referendum on each constitutional amendment shall begin at a time determined by the Governor (but not more than one month after it obtains the required signatures) and shall remain open for one week. " X Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on November 29, 2009, 12:05:53 PM I sign both of bgwah's bills.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on November 29, 2009, 03:23:55 PM I sign both bills.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on November 30, 2009, 09:04:36 PM Voting is now open on the following bill and amendment to the regional constitution. Voting ends in exactly one week.
Renaming of Jackson County Bill 1) Whereas Andrew Jackson was a genocidal maniac who did not share the values of the Pacific Region and does not deserve the honor of a Pacific county named after him. 2) Therefore Jackson County, Oregon shall be renamed in honor of the recently deceased entertainer and long-time resident of the Pacific Region Michael Jackson. Legislature Amendment 1) Section 1:3 of Article II shall be amended to read "A referendum on each bill shall begin at a time determined by the Governor (but not more than one month after it obtains the required signatures) and shall remain open for one week." 2) Section 3:3 of Article II shall be amended to read "A referendum on each constitutional amendment shall begin at a time determined by the Governor (but not more than one month after it obtains the required signatures) and shall remain open for one week. " Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 30, 2009, 09:41:46 PM Renaming of Jackson County Bill: Aye
Legislature Amendment: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 30, 2009, 10:06:15 PM Aye to both
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on November 30, 2009, 11:26:17 PM Nay to the first, Aye to the second
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 30, 2009, 11:29:20 PM Renaming of Jackson County Bill: Aye
Legislature Amendment: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on December 01, 2009, 12:38:57 AM Aye to both
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 02, 2009, 08:12:20 PM Nay to the first, Aye to the second That's ignorant! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on December 03, 2009, 02:18:52 AM Nay to the first, Aye to the second That's ignorant! Eh, Jackson had a lot of flaws, but I still like the guy. I went ahead and put it on the ballot though. See how nice of a governor I am? :D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 02:19:41 AM Nay to the first, Aye to the second That's ignorant! Eh, Jackson had a lot of flaws, but I still like the guy. I went ahead and put it on the ballot though. See how nice of a governor I am? :D Well... now that Dan Adams has been booted, you're kinda the worst... :'( Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 12, 2010, 12:53:55 AM Renaming of Jackson County Bill
By a vote of 4-1, this legislation has passed. x Ebowed Legislature Amendment By a vote of 5-0, this legislation has passed. x Ebowed Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 12, 2010, 01:08:35 AM As your new Governor, I will be embarking on a raft of ambitious proposals to rapidly expand the size of the government and the influence it exerts in many areas of our lives. ;)
Any constructive feedback on how to improve these proposals would be appreciated. Handgun Phase Out Bill 1. Effective three months upon the passage of this act, the Pacific Region declares itself a handgun free area. 2. Handgun owners will have three months to give handguns to any local Handgun Amnesty Office without penalty. 3. Three months upon the passage of this act, possession of a handgun will be a crime eligible for up to a $5,000 fine and/or up to six months in prison. Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill 1. The Pacific Government will ensure that every resident over the age of 16 will be given a minimum income of $14,900 per year. 2. To apply for this minimum income, a resident over the age of 16 must be earning less than $14,900; a citizen earning less than the amount will be given the necessary sum to total an income of $14,900. 3. Residents who do not earn income, including welfare recipients, will be eligible for the full annual $14,900. 4. The guaranteed minimum income will also be open to immigrants including those not documented with the federal government. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 12, 2010, 01:20:17 AM I fear the minimum income would encourage unemployment and cost us a lot of money. I support the first, however.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on January 12, 2010, 01:21:34 AM Is the first constitutional under the Atlasian Constitution?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 12, 2010, 01:22:34 AM Is the first constitutional under the Atlasian Constitution? That, I'm afraid, is something I cannot comment on. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 12, 2010, 01:22:46 AM I fear the minimum income would encourage unemployment and cost us a lot of money. That's certainly a valid concern, but given the current status of welfare in Atlasia I feel it is perhaps more pertinent to discuss drastic measures such as a guaranteed minimum income. Last I read from the GM we do have the lowest unemployment of any of the regions, but I will work on a different bill to rapidly expand the safety net for the poor. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 12, 2010, 01:36:27 AM I fear the minimum income would encourage unemployment and cost us a lot of money. That's certainly a valid concern, but given the current status of welfare in Atlasia I feel it is perhaps more pertinent to discuss drastic measures such as a guaranteed minimum income. Last I read from the GM we do have the lowest unemployment of any of the regions, but I will work on a different bill to rapidly expand the safety net for the poor. So in our present federal welfare law we have "Atlasians receiving public assistance will be allotted a three year maximum" with exceptions for disability and so on. I suppose one way of addressing my concerns would be for the Pacific government to provide assistance to its residents who then get kicked off of the federal system - whether through a welfare program or a guaranteed income or whatever else would be politically feasible. I might also look into a more comprehensive firearm control measure with trigger locks and waiting periods and so on. I am cautious though as the last time I proposed the handgun ban it did not fare particularly well. We'll see if the make-up of our citizenry has undergone any sort of ideological shift, I suppose. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on January 12, 2010, 01:37:53 AM Is the first constitutional under the Atlasian Constitution? That, I'm afraid, is something I cannot comment on. Haha, Marokai without a comment. Quoted for posterity's sake. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 12, 2010, 01:38:50 AM Is the first constitutional under the Atlasian Constitution? That, I'm afraid, is something I cannot comment on. Haha, Marokai without a comment. Quoted for posterity's sake. :P I'm not allowed! :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on January 12, 2010, 01:39:59 AM Is the first constitutional under the Atlasian Constitution? That, I'm afraid, is something I cannot comment on. Haha, Marokai without a comment. Quoted for posterity's sake. :P I'm not allowed! :P Oh I am well aware. Doesn't lessen the humor in it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on January 12, 2010, 01:50:11 AM Quote Handgun Phase Out Bill 1. Effective three months upon the passage of this act, the Pacific Region declares itself a handgun free area. 2. Handgun owners will have three months to give handguns to any local Handgun Amnesty Office without penalty. 3. Three months upon the passage of this act, possession of a handgun will be a crime eligible for up to a $5,000 fine and/or up to six months in prison. Probably violate Article VI, Clause IV of the Second Constitution. Quote Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill 1. The Pacific Government will ensure that every resident over the age of 16 will be given a minimum income of $14,900 per year. 2. To apply for this minimum income, a resident over the age of 16 must be earning less than $14,900; a citizen earning less than the amount will be given the necessary sum to total an income of $14,900. 3. Residents who do not earn income, including welfare recipients, will be eligible for the full annual $14,900. 4. The guaranteed minimum income will also be open to immigrants including those not documented with the federal government. Clause 3 is not good. It would add 14,900$ to welfare recipients. Clause 4 is ridiculous. We could put a big sign "Immigrants, come here illegally and you will be paid", it would be the same! I have some questions. Is the 14,900$ is tax-free? I would like to know the minimum wage to calculate some things. What is the yearly wage of a worker to the minimum wage? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 12, 2010, 02:03:16 AM The minimum wage in the Pacific is $7.50 per hour.
The guaranteed income would be tax-free. The wording in clause 3 does need to be reworked a little since having a guaranteed minimum income would severely reduce the need for public assistance programs - at least in terms of people receiving money from the system for long periods of time. I am fine to remove clause 4, though I am not willing to include a provision stating the opposite of what clause 4 presently states. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on January 12, 2010, 02:07:08 AM The minimum wage in the Pacific is $7.50 per hour. It will climb to 8.50 "by the end of 2010", according to the "Reasonable Minimum Wage Act". Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 12, 2010, 02:11:48 AM The minimum wage in the Pacific is $7.50 per hour. It will climb to 8.50 "by the end of 2010", according to the "Reasonable Minimum Wage Act". Yup. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 while the Pacific's is twenty five cents higher. Of course we will be succumbing to the federal increase at the end of the year unless anyone in the legislature feels like strengthening the regional law regarding the subject beforehand (which I would happily support). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Vepres on January 12, 2010, 01:46:12 PM The Midwest would gladly take those guns off your hands ;D (and then invade New Mexico)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 12, 2010, 05:00:59 PM I might be able to support a minimum income if it was temporary. Permanent is very tempting, but there are just so many concerns for me.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 30, 2010, 07:34:32 PM Voting is now open on the following proposal, and closes in exactly one week.
Handgun Phase Out Bill 1. Effective three months upon the passage of this act, the Pacific Region declares itself a handgun free area. 2. Handgun owners will have three months to give handguns to any local Handgun Amnesty Office without penalty. 3. Three months upon the passage of this act, possession of a handgun will be a crime eligible for up to a $5,000 fine and/or up to six months in prison. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 31, 2010, 02:45:26 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Franzl on January 31, 2010, 05:42:20 PM This looks blatantly unconstitutional to me, fwiw.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: k-onmmunist on January 31, 2010, 05:58:27 PM Thank God I'm not in the Pacific.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 31, 2010, 06:04:35 PM This looks blatantly unconstitutional to me, fwiw. Hey, he brought it up, I'm just voting. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 31, 2010, 10:56:07 PM Handgun Phase Out Bill: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 31, 2010, 11:51:53 PM So our region appears to be suffering from an influx of illegal immigrants. I can only blame the federal government for repealing many of the humanitarian legal stipulations that treated undocumented immigrants with basic dignity and respect. :)
I would also question whether it is our responsibility to foot the bill for the increased border protection funding that would seem to be necessitated by the recent reports from the GM. Any thoughts? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 02, 2010, 06:50:38 PM Voting is now open on the following proposal, and closes in exactly one week. Handgun Phase Out Bill 1. Effective three months upon the passage of this act, the Pacific Region declares itself a handgun free area. 2. Handgun owners will have three months to give handguns to any local Handgun Amnesty Office without penalty. 3. Three months upon the passage of this act, possession of a handgun will be a crime eligible for up to a $5,000 fine and/or up to six months in prison. Wow, my Northeast Gun Safety Act looks like a really watered-down thing in contrast. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 04, 2010, 04:10:11 PM Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on February 05, 2010, 12:32:18 AM Nay, owners aren't compensated.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on February 05, 2010, 09:10:43 PM I don't think I can still vote on this, but nay anyway.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 05, 2010, 11:10:51 PM I don't think I can still vote on this, but nay anyway. Why couldn't you vote? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on February 05, 2010, 11:27:22 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on February 06, 2010, 03:03:56 AM I don't think I can still vote on this, but nay anyway. Why couldn't you vote? I guess I counted my days wrong. Oops. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on February 06, 2010, 08:12:39 PM With a vote of 3-3, the legislation has failed.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on February 06, 2010, 09:04:10 PM With a vote of 3-3, the legislation has failed. *Applause* Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: k-onmmunist on February 07, 2010, 04:28:38 PM With a vote of 3-3, the legislation has failed. *Applause* Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Barnes on February 07, 2010, 05:12:27 PM With a vote of 3-3, the legislation has failed. *Applause* Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on February 23, 2010, 06:58:59 PM Executive Order from the Office of the Governor
Effective immediately, all areas where the Pacific Region borders the Southeast Region will be closed. Law enforcement officers have been given directives to prevent the entry of any Southeastern convicts into the Pacific Region. x Ebowed Should my lawsuit against the Southeast government be successful, I will be happy to repeal this order and restore sanity to the import/export situation between the two regions. I can only express my extreme dismay in the people of the Southeast for deciding that its culture of religious and anti-government extremism, and the correlation of a high violent crime rate that goes with it, is grounds enough to dump their criminals somewhere else as if they were just animals being transported across state lines. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 08, 2010, 02:00:32 AM Effective immediately I am appointing Antonio V to fill the Lieutenant Governor vacancy.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on March 08, 2010, 02:06:45 AM Your budget report is up. The deficit is lower, but not closed. Here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2396071#msg2396071) is an idea on how to close it.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 08, 2010, 07:03:28 AM Effective immediately I am appointing Antonio V to fill the Lieutenant Governor vacancy. Thank you for your confidence, Mr Governor. I'll try to be worthy of it. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 08, 2010, 06:14:03 PM Your budget report is up. The deficit is lower, but not closed. Here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2396071#msg2396071) is an idea on how to close it. What, specifically, could we do to accomplish that? Also I introduce a resolution, everyone sign! :P Quote Bestest Friend Resolution The Pacific Region thanks the Mideast Region for their courage in introducing a resolution to stand by the Pacific during the period of the Southeast threats against us. We henceforth declare the Mideast Region the Pacific's bestest friend. x Marokai Blue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on March 08, 2010, 10:17:25 PM Your budget report is up. The deficit is lower, but not closed. Here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2396071#msg2396071) is an idea on how to close it. What, specifically, could we do to accomplish that? One very good option is passage of legislation allowing for citizens to agree to disband and consolidate certain levels of government. This could reduce the layers of taxes on the citizens and reduce region-level expenditures on local government operations. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 11, 2010, 07:54:19 PM Executive Order from the Office of the Governor Effective immediately, all areas where the Pacific Region borders the Southeast Region will be closed. Law enforcement officers have been given directives to prevent the entry of any Southeastern convicts into the Pacific Region. x Ebowed I rescind the above order effective immediately. x Ebowed I would sincerely hope that the Southeast government can determine a boundary between petty payback for political disagreement and attempting to launch a civil war when crafting its statute in the future. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 12, 2010, 01:19:25 PM Also I introduce a resolution, everyone sign! :P Quote Bestest Friend Resolution The Pacific Region thanks the Mideast Region for their courage in introducing a resolution to stand by the Pacific during the period of the Southeast threats against us. We henceforth declare the Mideast Region the Pacific's bestest friend. x Marokai Blue X Antonio V Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 13, 2010, 03:16:42 AM Gun Waiting Period Bill
1. Any person attempting to purchase a firearm of any kind must wait a minimum of five days after first lodging a request with a firearm dealership to finalize the transaction. 2. Gun store owners found to be in violation of this law will face a fine not to exceed $50,000, a permanent loss of business license, or both. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 13, 2010, 06:07:04 AM What does this really bring ? It changes nothing to the problem of gun ownership itself.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 13, 2010, 05:20:15 PM Gun Waiting Period Bill 1. Any person attempting to purchase a firearm of any kind must wait a minimum of five days after first lodging a request with a firearm dealership to finalize the transaction. 2. Gun store owners found to be in violation of this law will face a fine not to exceed $50,000, a permanent loss of business license, or both. I'll support it if you bring my friend resolution up for a vote :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 13, 2010, 07:56:17 PM What does this really bring ? It changes nothing to the problem of gun ownership itself. The main desire of such legislation is to help prevent crimes of passion and generally just decrease the ease with which one can purchase a firearm. Believe me, I would like to make it even harder... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 14, 2010, 05:51:19 AM What does this really bring ? It changes nothing to the problem of gun ownership itself. The main desire of such legislation is to help prevent crimes of passion and generally just decrease the ease with which one can purchase a firearm. Believe me, I would like to make it even harder... Well, you're right. It's still a progress, though a small one. Later, we could try to pass an equivalent of the Northeast Gun Safety Act. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 14, 2010, 07:35:43 AM Later, we could try to pass an equivalent of the Northeast Gun Safety Act. If you can provide me with the text of that law I'd be happy to review it. I will sign Marokai's initiative to bring it to the ballot. We are now voting on the following initiatives. Voting begins immediately and ends in one week. Bestest Friend Resolution The Pacific Region thanks the Mideast Region for their courage in introducing a resolution to stand by the Pacific during the period of the Southeast threats against us. We henceforth declare the Mideast Region the Pacific's bestest friend. Gun Waiting Period Bill 1. Any person attempting to purchase a firearm of any kind must wait a minimum of five days after first lodging a request with a firearm dealership to finalize the transaction. 2. Gun store owners found to be in violation of this law will face a fine not to exceed $50,000, a permanent loss of business license, or both. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 14, 2010, 07:37:17 AM Bestest Friend Resolution: Aye
Gun Waiting Period: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 14, 2010, 11:30:16 AM Bestest Friend Resolution: Aye
Gun Waiting Period: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 14, 2010, 11:32:39 AM Later, we could try to pass an equivalent of the Northeast Gun Safety Act. If you can provide me with the text of that law I'd be happy to review it. https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Northeast_Gun_Safety_Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Northeast_Gun_Safety_Act) Quote Northeast Gun Safety Act 1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal. 2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction. 3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to: a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005. 4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane. Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 16, 2010, 10:22:02 AM Later, we could try to pass an equivalent of the Northeast Gun Safety Act. If you can provide me with the text of that law I'd be happy to review it. https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Northeast_Gun_Safety_Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Northeast_Gun_Safety_Act) Quote Northeast Gun Safety Act 1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal. 2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction. 3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to: a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005. 4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane. Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension. I started this FYI ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 16, 2010, 05:12:42 PM Oh my, I think I have to abstain based on the poor English alone... Bestest? You're not old enough to use a computer, Tommy Pickles.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 16, 2010, 07:39:11 PM Bestest Friend Resolution: Nay
Gun Waiting Period Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 16, 2010, 10:01:51 PM I abstain on both bills.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 21, 2010, 07:40:54 AM Voting is closed.
Bestest Friend Resolution passes 2-1-1. x Ebowed Gun Waiting Period Bill passes 3-0-1. x Ebowed Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 10, 2010, 03:43:09 AM Labeling Requirements Bill
1. All products containing any material originating from animals being sold within the Pacific Region must be explicitly labeled to designate as such. 2. Any exemptions preventing the requirement of a full listing of ingredients for alcoholic beverages are repealed. HDPE Taxation Bill 1. Effective four months upon the passage of this legislation, food and beverages sold in material containing high-density polyethylene (HDPE), a type of polyethylene thermoplastic, will be subject to an additional 18% Environmental Impact Tax. 2. Revenue generated by this tax will go towards the continued funding of research into environmentally sound renewable energy sources. Religious Institution Reclassification Bill For the purposes of taxation and associated benefits, churches and other religious institutions shall henceforth be recognized as businesses by the Pacific Region. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on April 10, 2010, 03:44:08 AM Sodom and Gomorrah Bill
1) Colorado City, Arizona is hereby renamed Sodom, Arizona. 2) Hildale, Utah is hereby renamed Gomorrah, Utah. Pad Thai Bill 1) Curry County, Oregon shall henceforth be known as Pad Thai County, Oregon. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 10, 2010, 03:53:55 AM I will sign both of bgwah's proposals to bring them to the ballot.
AIDS Prevention Act Funding Extension 1. The Pacific Government pledges $10 million towards condom distribution programs effective FY 2011. 2. The Pacific Government pledges $10 million towards needle exchange programs effective FY 2011. Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Bill 1. Any regional and local laws to prohibit the sale, possession, consumption, distribution, or manufacture of alkyl nitrites ("poppers") are repealed. 2. Sale of alkyl nitrites to persons under the age of 18 will remain illegal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on April 12, 2010, 09:29:35 PM Where did all of this activity come from?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 12, 2010, 10:02:46 PM I sign Bgwah's proposals, and I believe I'm supportive of everything here.
I would, however, like to start some discussion on dismantling the Pacific's Single Payer system and submit the region's healthcare system to the national healthcare program passed a few senates ago. I think it would be be far more efficient for the region by cutting out alot of unnecessary stuff, and save the region money. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 13, 2010, 02:43:18 AM For reference, the Universal Health Care Act of 2007 states:
1. The Pacific Region hereby establishes a single-payer universal health care program. 2. This program will be open towards any resident or citizen of the Pacific Region regardless of previous health conditions, disability, citizenship status, criminal record, or economic status. No person will be required to pay for access to health care. 3. All medical services, including preventative treatment and dental care, will be covered under this system. 4. All subsidies towards health maintenence organizations ('HMOs') are abolished. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 13, 2010, 01:52:27 PM Where did all of this activity come from? "Activity", lol. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 13, 2010, 08:25:08 PM For reference, the Universal Health Care Act of 2007 states: 1. The Pacific Region hereby establishes a single-payer universal health care program. 2. This program will be open towards any resident or citizen of the Pacific Region regardless of previous health conditions, disability, citizenship status, criminal record, or economic status. No person will be required to pay for access to health care. 3. All medical services, including preventative treatment and dental care, will be covered under this system. 4. All subsidies towards health maintenence organizations ('HMOs') are abolished. The national act is here: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_National_Healthcare_Act It's quite comprehensive. I think at this point it's probably redundant for us to have our own regional HC system. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 15, 2010, 08:50:16 PM Well, a simple repeal will suffice.
Universal Health Care Act Repeal 1. Clauses 1-3 of the Universal Health Care Act of 2007 are repealed. 2. The legislature will be required to consider a re-enactment of said legislation in the event of federal universal health care legislation being repealed or found unconstitutional. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 15, 2010, 09:04:31 PM Superb!
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 18, 2010, 10:48:19 PM Voting now begins on the following initiatives and concludes in a week.
Labeling Requirements Bill 1. All products containing any material originating from animals being sold within the Pacific Region must be explicitly labeled to designate as such. 2. Any exemptions preventing the requirement of a full listing of ingredients for alcoholic beverages are repealed. HDPE Taxation Bill 1. Effective four months upon the passage of this legislation, food and beverages sold in material containing high-density polyethylene (HDPE), a type of polyethylene thermoplastic, will be subject to an additional 18% Environmental Impact Tax. 2. Revenue generated by this tax will go towards the continued funding of research into environmentally sound renewable energy sources. Religious Institution Reclassification Bill For the purposes of taxation and associated benefits, churches and other religious institutions shall henceforth be recognized as businesses by the Pacific Region. Sodom and Gomorrah Bill 1) Colorado City, Arizona is hereby renamed Sodom, Arizona. 2) Hildale, Utah is hereby renamed Gomorrah, Utah. Pad Thai Bill 1) Curry County, Oregon shall henceforth be known as Pad Thai County, Oregon. AIDS Prevention Act Funding Extension 1. The Pacific Government pledges $10 million towards condom distribution programs effective FY 2011. 2. The Pacific Government pledges $10 million towards needle exchange programs effective FY 2011. Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Bill 1. Any regional and local laws to prohibit the sale, possession, consumption, distribution, or manufacture of alkyl nitrites ("poppers") are repealed. 2. Sale of alkyl nitrites to persons under the age of 18 will remain illegal. Universal Health Care Act Repeal 1. Clauses 1-3 of the Universal Health Care Act of 2007 are repealed. 2. The legislature will be required to consider a re-enactment of said legislation in the event of federal universal health care legislation being repealed or found unconstitutional. Please vote 'aye', 'nay' or abstain. Labeling Requirements Bill: HDPE Taxation Bill: Religious Institution Reclassification Bill: Sodom and Gomorrah Bill: Pad Thai Bill: AIDS Prevention Act Funding Extension: Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Bill: Universal Health Care Act Repeal: Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 18, 2010, 10:49:48 PM Labeling Requirements Bill: Aye
HDPE Taxation Bill: Aye Religious Institution Reclassification Bill: Aye Sodom and Gomorrah Bill: Aye Pad Thai Bill: Aye AIDS Prevention Act Funding Extension: Aye Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Bill: Aye Universal Health Care Act Repeal: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 18, 2010, 10:51:21 PM Labeling Requirements Bill: Aye
HDPE Taxation Bill: Aye Religious Institution Reclassification Bill: Aye Sodom and Gomorrah Bill: Aye Pad Thai Bill: Aye AIDS Prevention Act Funding Extension: Aye Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Bill: Nay Universal Health Care Act Repeal: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on April 18, 2010, 11:13:23 PM Labeling Requirements Bill: Aye
HDPE Taxation Bill: NO, but we should tax material contening bisphenol Religious Institution Reclassification Bill: No, will hurt small and honest churches Sodom and Gomorrah Bill: Yes Pad Thai Bill: Yes AIDS Prevention Act Funding Extension: Yes Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Bill: No Universal Health Care Act Repeal: Yes No matter the result on "HDPE Taxation Bill", I'll push for something about Bisphenol and for a sane tax classification for churches. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on April 18, 2010, 11:30:58 PM Labeling Requirements Bill: Aye
HDPE Taxation Bill: Aye Religious Institution Reclassification Bill: Nay Sodom and Gomorrah Bill: Aye Pad Thai Bill: Aye AIDS Prevention Act Funding Extension: Aye Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Bill: Aye Universal Health Care Act Repeal: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on April 18, 2010, 11:59:31 PM Aye on all
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on April 19, 2010, 05:25:46 PM Who the hell told ya'll to be active all of a sudden? :P
Good to see this. I can report on more than potential war in the Pacific now. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 25, 2010, 10:49:06 PM Voting is closed.
Labeling Requirements Bill passes 5-0 HDPE Taxation Bill passes 4-1 Religious Institution Reclassification Bill passes 3-2 Sodom and Gomorrah Bill passes 5-0 Pad Thai Bill passes 5-0 AIDS Prevention Act Funding Extension passes 5-0 Alkyl Nitrites Deregulation Bill passes 3-2 Universal Health Care Act Repeal passes 5-0 x Ebowed Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 02, 2010, 10:24:39 PM Recently passed federal legislation stipulates that Regions will forfeit 10% of their federal highway funding if provided statute designed to address drunk driving is not adopted into the regional law code.
In lieu of adopting the regulations (which to me appear to presume guilt until innocence is proven), I am happy to take the 10% highway funding cut. I would like to work on a bill to expand public transportation and generally decrease the use and appeal of automobiles, as well as petroleum. Despite our historically long-standing regional opposition to oil drilling in ANWR, the Senate has in the past approved measures opening up the wildlife reserves for drilling there. If anyone is game I think we could write up a list of pretty tough environmental protection measures which would prohibit the federal drilling in Alaska as a violation of our own region's laws. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 02, 2010, 10:43:18 PM This is something from a federal environmental policy bill that I tried to pass a long time ago - I figure that as the Pacific contains much of Atlasia's publicly protected areas, a regional law will at least do something to address this otherwise neglected issue.
Snowmobile Regulation Bill 1. It shall hereby be illegal to use a snowmobile in any publicly protected national area. 2. Any person using a snowmobile in a publicly protected national area will be fined a minimum of $1,000 or a maximum of $5,000 per violation. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 17, 2010, 01:39:54 AM Voting is now open on the following bill and closes in exactly one week.
Snowmobile Regulation Bill 1. It shall hereby be illegal to use a snowmobile in any publicly protected national area. 2. Any person using a snowmobile in a publicly protected national area will be fined a minimum of $1,000 or a maximum of $5,000 per violation. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 17, 2010, 01:41:08 AM Snowmobile Regulation Bill: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 17, 2010, 01:43:23 AM Snowmobile Regulation Bill: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on May 18, 2010, 12:12:28 PM AFAIK I'm allowed vote here, but correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway,
Snowmobile Regulation Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on May 18, 2010, 09:28:45 PM Snowmobile Regulation Bill: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 18, 2010, 11:55:52 PM AFAIK I'm allowed vote here, but correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, Snowmobile Regulation Bill: Aye Sure. Everyone, as long as they're from the Pacific, can vote here. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on May 21, 2010, 01:52:21 AM Snowmobile Regulation Act: NAY
Bad for tourism. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on May 21, 2010, 02:02:33 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 23, 2010, 09:37:25 PM By a vote of 5-1, the Snowmobile Regulation Bill passes. x Ebowed
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 24, 2010, 10:50:03 PM ANWR Petroleum Drilling Prohibition Bill
1. Effective immediately upon the passage of this act, any new instances of oil drilling occurring anywhere in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for commercial interests will be prohibited. 2. Companies presently drilling in the affected area will have three months upon the passage of this act to dismantle drilling operations and withdraw from the area. 3. Persons found to be in violation of this act will be sentenced to a fine not to exceed $100 million as well as a minimum of five years imprisonment. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 24, 2010, 11:02:52 PM Selective Education Funding Act
1. No funds from the Pacific Region may be diverted to provide assistance to privately owned schools operating for students in grades K-12. 2. This act shall also be interpreted to expressly prohibit "voucher" programs and any other indirect subsidy to private school tuition. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on May 25, 2010, 10:54:20 PM Selective Education Funding Act: Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on May 27, 2010, 01:52:30 PM ANWR Petroleum Drilling Prohibition Bill: Aye
Selective Education Funding Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on May 27, 2010, 06:20:46 PM Petroleum Bill: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 27, 2010, 08:21:16 PM Aye
Abstain Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 27, 2010, 08:27:33 PM Are we actually voting now?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 27, 2010, 09:23:23 PM Bill
The "Accuracy in Balloting Act" is hereby repealed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on May 27, 2010, 09:30:12 PM Act The "Accuracy in Balloting Act" is hereby repealed. You are simply calling this "Act"???? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 27, 2010, 09:35:31 PM Act The "Accuracy in Balloting Act" is hereby repealed. You are simply calling this "Act"???? My mistake. It's not an Act until it is enacted. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 27, 2010, 10:33:52 PM Are we actually voting now? Not yet Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 29, 2010, 10:52:48 PM Voting is now open on the following initiatives and closes in exactly one week.
ANWR Petroleum Drilling Prohibition Bill 1. Effective immediately upon the passage of this act, any new instances of oil drilling occurring anywhere in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for commercial interests will be prohibited. 2. Companies presently drilling in the affected area will have three months upon the passage of this act to dismantle drilling operations and withdraw from the area. 3. Persons found to be in violation of this act will be sentenced to a fine not to exceed $100 million as well as a minimum of five years imprisonment. Selective Education Funding Act 1. No funds from the Pacific Region may be diverted to provide assistance to privately owned schools operating for students in grades K-12. 2. This act shall also be interpreted to expressly prohibit "voucher" programs and any other indirect subsidy to private school tuition. Please vote aye, nay or abstain. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 29, 2010, 10:53:28 PM ANWR Petroleum Drilling Prohibition Bill: Aye
Selective Education Funding Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on May 30, 2010, 02:56:37 PM ANWR Petroleum Drilling Prohibition Bill: Aye
Selective Education Funding Bill: Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on May 30, 2010, 03:23:12 PM Aye and aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 30, 2010, 03:39:54 PM ANWR Petroleum Drilling Prohibition Bill: Aye
Selective Education Funding Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on June 03, 2010, 08:49:59 AM Looks like I jumped the gun on voting on those two bills. *facepalm*
So, anyway, ANWR Petroleum Drilling Prohibition Bill: Aye Selective Education Funding Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 04, 2010, 09:06:00 PM Aye
Abstain Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on June 05, 2010, 04:02:07 AM Voting has concluded.
ANWR Petroleum Drilling Prohibition Bill passes, 6-0. Selective Education Funding Bill passes, 4-1-1. x Ebowed Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 14, 2010, 04:25:36 PM Bill The "Accuracy in Balloting Act" is hereby repealed. How exactly does this legislature work? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 15, 2010, 11:00:31 AM Bill The "Accuracy in Balloting Act" is hereby repealed. How exactly does this legislature work? I think it will need three signatures. But you'll have to introduce it again formally now. I'll sign on to the legislation for you, and you do the same, then we only need one more, and Ebowed can then bring it up for a vote. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on June 18, 2010, 01:25:36 PM I'd sign it 'cause it's not like I've anything better to do. *shrug*
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on June 21, 2010, 12:55:44 AM Voting is now open on the following legislation, and will close in exactly one week.
Bill to Repeal the Accuracy in Balloting Act The "Accuracy in Balloting Act" is hereby repealed. Please vote aye, nay or abstain. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on June 21, 2010, 12:56:49 AM Bill to Repeal the Accuracy in Balloting Act: Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 21, 2010, 06:00:38 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on June 21, 2010, 11:06:17 AM Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 21, 2010, 12:16:04 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 21, 2010, 03:35:23 PM What is the "Accuracy in Balloting Act" ? I might sign it. ;) It is an act designed to rename Xahar whenever he runs for office in the Pacific on our ballots. It renames him "Chode" on ballots for regional positions. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 21, 2010, 03:38:33 PM Wow, quite bad. :P
Anyways, I've deleted my post because it happens that I was one page behind. I'm pretty tired, LOL. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 21, 2010, 03:44:07 PM Vote for repeal, then. ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on June 21, 2010, 04:38:02 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on June 21, 2010, 05:21:40 PM Nay.
Also, yay for my one vote for Pacific Senator.:) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 21, 2010, 10:50:18 PM nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on June 22, 2010, 12:16:03 AM Nay of course.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 22, 2010, 02:10:14 PM Aye of course.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 22, 2010, 06:06:03 PM In the meantime..
Quote Constitutional Convention Petition The Pacific Region formally petitions the President of Atlasia to call a Constitutional Convention for the purposes of consolidation of the constitution and/or legislative reboot of the game. Signatures! x Marokai Blue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on June 24, 2010, 12:03:00 AM Aye (for repealing the chode thing)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on June 24, 2010, 12:03:40 AM I sign the Constituonnal Convention Petition, too.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on June 24, 2010, 12:25:48 AM I sign the petition. (on the grounds I get to be a representative :p)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 24, 2010, 03:58:55 PM Quote Constitutional Convention Petition The Pacific Region formally petitions the President of Atlasia to call a Constitutional Convention for the purposes of consolidation of the constitution and/or legislative reboot of the game. X Antonio V Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on June 24, 2010, 06:21:14 PM X Oakvale
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on June 28, 2010, 01:02:18 AM Voting has concluded. With 5 votes in favor and 5 votes against, the Bill to Repeal the Accuracy in Balloting Act has failed.
Voting is now open on the following proposal, and closes in exactly one week. Constitutional Convention Petition The Pacific Region formally petitions the President of Atlasia to call a Constitutional Convention for the purposes of consolidation of the constitution and/or legislative reboot of the game. Please vote aye, nay or abstain. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 28, 2010, 01:08:01 AM Aye without hesitation.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on June 28, 2010, 10:07:07 AM Oh, right, oops.
Aye. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on June 28, 2010, 04:00:25 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on June 29, 2010, 04:17:46 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on June 29, 2010, 11:28:30 PM 2010 Minimum Wage Increase Bill
1. The minimum wage shall be raised by $1.25, to $8.75, effective two months after the passage of this act. Safety Net Bill 1. Present federal welfare laws requiring that "Atlasians receiving public assistance will be allotted a three year maximum" with some listed exceptions will be supplemented by the Pacific Welfare Office upon the conclusion of any resident's eligibility for the federal program. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 30, 2010, 09:28:18 AM Constitutional Convention Petition : Aye
2010 Minimum Wage Increase Bill 1. The minimum wage shall be raised by $1.25, to $8.75, effective two months after the passage of this act. Safety Net Bill 1. Present federal welfare laws requiring that "Atlasians receiving public assistance will be allotted a three year maximum" with some listed exceptions will be supplemented by the Pacific Welfare Office upon the conclusion of any resident's conclusion of eligibility for the federal program. X Antonio V (to both) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 30, 2010, 01:22:12 PM 2010 Minimum Wage Increase Bill 1. The minimum wage shall be raised by $1.25, to $8.75, effective two months after the passage of this act. Safety Net Bill 1. Present federal welfare laws requiring that "Atlasians receiving public assistance will be allotted a three year maximum" with some listed exceptions will be supplemented by the Pacific Welfare Office upon the conclusion of any resident's eligibility for the federal program. Three year maximum? How limited. Perhaps we should look into extending that on the federal level. In any case, I happily sign both. x Marokai Blue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on June 30, 2010, 11:46:31 PM I sign both proposals.
X MaxQue Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on July 05, 2010, 03:18:05 AM The constitutional convention petition passes 5-0. x Ebowed
Voting is now open on the following proposals and closes in exactly one week. 2010 Minimum Wage Increase Bill 1. The minimum wage shall be raised by $1.25, to $8.75, effective two months after the passage of this act. Safety Net Bill 1. Present federal welfare laws requiring that "Atlasians receiving public assistance will be allotted a three year maximum" with some listed exceptions will be supplemented by the Pacific Welfare Office upon the conclusion of any resident's eligibility for the federal program. Please vote aye, nay or abstain. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on July 05, 2010, 03:18:44 AM 2010 Minimum Wage Increase Bill: Aye
Safety Net Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 05, 2010, 03:25:10 AM 2010 Minimum Wage Increase Bill: Aye
Safety Net Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 05, 2010, 03:58:17 AM 2010 Minimum Wage Increase Bill: Aye
Safety Net Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 05, 2010, 08:18:03 AM 2010 Minimum Wage Increase Bill: Aye
Safety Net Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on July 10, 2010, 07:12:02 PM Quote 2010 Minimum Wage Increase Bill: Aye Safety Net Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on July 12, 2010, 11:08:25 AM 2010 Minimum Wage Increase Bill passes 5-0.
Safety Net Bill passes 5-0. x Ebowed Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 19, 2010, 12:16:11 PM Okay, everyone, we've got to select a delegate for the upcoming Constitutional Convention, and we should probably do it ASAP.
I've got a thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=120936.0) in the main forum, but I think it makes sense to formally open voting and nominations here, too. Ideally, we'd be looking for someone with a positive attitude towards the ConCon, and who can work closely with the other regional delegates in reforming and rewriting the Constitution. Since this person would be a delegate for the Pacific region, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a degree of consulation with myself and the legislature during the proceedings on the convention, although, of course, the final word belongs to the delegate themselves. :) So, in short: A) Do you want to be a delegate? Nominate yourself here. B) Do you know someone who'd make a good delegate? Nominate them here. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 19, 2010, 01:21:51 PM We have our first candidate, ArchangelZero aka The Doctor.
Seeing as how I'm confident he'll do a fine job, and the fact we need to get this process done quickly, I endorse him. So, here's one vote for ArchangelZero. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 19, 2010, 02:17:25 PM Come on, you can't do that while I'm at football practice. That's not fair! :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 19, 2010, 02:50:01 PM I nominate and vote for Xahar.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 19, 2010, 04:05:20 PM Xahar
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 19, 2010, 04:16:21 PM I vote for myself.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on July 19, 2010, 04:19:09 PM I vote for myself.:P
Might as well as make this interesting haha. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Torie on July 19, 2010, 04:28:10 PM Xahar.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on July 19, 2010, 05:51:16 PM Xahar
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 19, 2010, 06:25:57 PM I nominate and vote for Ebowed.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: phk on July 19, 2010, 08:08:33 PM Xahar
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on July 19, 2010, 10:28:50 PM Ebowed
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on July 19, 2010, 10:43:42 PM Xahar.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 19, 2010, 11:21:47 PM I thought Xahar hated zombies? Oh, you mean he is one of the biggest hypocrites in Atlasian history? Fascinating. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 19, 2010, 11:40:49 PM Anyway, a quick question for the Governor--are we actually voting? Your beginning post sounded mostly like a nominating process followed by an endorsement of ArchAngelZero, though we've clearly started voting anyway.
Legislation is typically voted on for one week, should we assume that is the case here if we've started voting? Thanks in advance for the clarification! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 20, 2010, 07:20:29 AM Anyway, a quick question for the Governor--are we actually voting? Your beginning post sounded mostly like a nominating process followed by an endorsement of ArchAngelZero, though we've clearly started voting anyway. Legislation is typically voted on for one week, should we assume that is the case here if we've started voting? Thanks in advance for the clarification! Oops, I should have made it clear. Yes, we're voting now. :) EDIT: And one week seems sensible, although if the Constitutional Convention starts before voting ends I guess we'll have to cut it short and call a winner right there. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on July 20, 2010, 09:28:51 AM I concede haha.
Apparently, I was informed that some people believe me to be Hamilton. Is this true? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 20, 2010, 09:38:19 AM Apparently, I was informed that some people believe me to be Hamilton. Is this true? Haha, really? I've been assuming that WilliamSargent is Hamilton, FWIW. :P Anyway, I'll change my vote to Ebowed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on July 20, 2010, 09:41:58 AM Apparently, I was informed that some people believe me to be Hamilton. Is this true? Haha, really? I've been assuming that WilliamSargent is Hamilton, FWIW. :P Anyway, I'll change my vote to Ebowed. Well it doesn't really matter anyways, considering I've already lost lol. Out of curiosity, when will the Lt. Gov position be open for election? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 20, 2010, 09:46:14 AM Apparently, I was informed that some people believe me to be Hamilton. Is this true? Haha, really? I've been assuming that WilliamSargent is Hamilton, FWIW. :P Anyway, I'll change my vote to Ebowed. Well it doesn't really matter anyways, considering I've already lost lol. Out of curiosity, when will the Lt. Gov position be open for election? It's open now AFAIK, if you want to run. If there's no other candidates for the position I think we can safely declare you elected by default, but as far as I know if there's more than one a special election is held. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 20, 2010, 09:51:28 AM Apparently, I was informed that some people believe me to be Hamilton. Is this true? Haha, really? I've been assuming that WilliamSargent is Hamilton, FWIW. :P Anyway, I'll change my vote to Ebowed. Well it doesn't really matter anyways, considering I've already lost lol. Out of curiosity, when will the Lt. Gov position be open for election? It's open now AFAIK, if you want to run. If there's no other candidates for the position I think we can safely declare you elected by default, but as far as I know if there's more than one a special election is held. Section 1 of the Fifth Amendment of the Pacific Constitution should answer your question: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution#First_Amendment Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on July 20, 2010, 09:55:17 AM I'll run then. Might as well as do something.:P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 20, 2010, 10:15:44 AM Apparently, I was informed that some people believe me to be Hamilton. Is this true? Haha, really? I've been assuming that WilliamSargent is Hamilton, FWIW. :P Anyway, I'll change my vote to Ebowed. Well it doesn't really matter anyways, considering I've already lost lol. Out of curiosity, when will the Lt. Gov position be open for election? It's open now AFAIK, if you want to run. If there's no other candidates for the position I think we can safely declare you elected by default, but as far as I know if there's more than one a special election is held. Section 1 of the Fifth Amendment of the Pacific Constitution should answer your question: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution#First_Amendment I notice we apparently had a "Chief Justice of the Pacific" position. I'm assuming that's been abolished, or do we still have it? ??? e: Oh, I see it was indeed abolished. EDIT: Oh, BTW, Archangel, according to the Constitutiton there'll be a special election for the Lieutenant Governor's position held on Friday. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on July 20, 2010, 10:43:18 AM Apparently, I was informed that some people believe me to be Hamilton. Is this true? Haha, really? I've been assuming that WilliamSargent is Hamilton, FWIW. :P Anyway, I'll change my vote to Ebowed. Well it doesn't really matter anyways, considering I've already lost lol. Out of curiosity, when will the Lt. Gov position be open for election? It's open now AFAIK, if you want to run. If there's no other candidates for the position I think we can safely declare you elected by default, but as far as I know if there's more than one a special election is held. Section 1 of the Fifth Amendment of the Pacific Constitution should answer your question: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution#First_Amendment I notice we apparently had a "Chief Justice of the Pacific" position. I'm assuming that's been abolished, or do we still have it? ??? e: Oh, I see it was indeed abolished. EDIT: Oh, BTW, Archangel, according to the Constitutiton there'll be a special election for the Lieutenant Governor's position held on Friday. :) I've already declared my candidacy.:) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis on July 20, 2010, 07:20:25 PM Xahar
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ogre Mage on July 21, 2010, 12:22:26 AM Ebowed.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on July 21, 2010, 11:57:51 AM Ebowed
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 21, 2010, 12:20:16 PM I see that you're pulling out all the stops to have your friend elected, at which point he will do nothing but concur with you. I can't imagine what enjoyment you could possibly find in this, but evidently you do find some.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on July 21, 2010, 02:09:51 PM I see that you're pulling out all the stops to have your friend elected, at which point he will do nothing but concur with you. I can't imagine what enjoyment you could possibly find in this, but evidently you do find some. Lol, I just noticed the random WA votes. I change my vote to Abstain (considering voting for myself is null anyways) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 21, 2010, 03:48:13 PM I'm going to go ahead and say that, although I'm supporting Ebowed, I'm a little perturbed by the amount of votes from people I've rarely - in some cases never - seen vote in this thread before. There's a bunch for Xahar, but there's a bunch for Ebowed, too, and I frown upon it.
*frowns upon it* Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 21, 2010, 04:03:59 PM I see that you're pulling out all the stops to have your friend elected, at which point he will do nothing but concur with you. I can't imagine what enjoyment you could possibly find in this, but evidently you do find some. How are Torie, Rocket, and Ogis any different? Ebowed hasn't been online so my endeavor will be unsuccessful anyway. Never fails to amaze me that people actually believe anything you say, though. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on July 22, 2010, 12:20:41 AM Ebowed
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 22, 2010, 12:31:44 AM I don't even get what you're trying to accomplish here.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on July 22, 2010, 09:13:32 AM I vote for myself.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 22, 2010, 11:32:52 AM Just FYI, anyone who hasn't voted yet, you've got four more days.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: All Along The Watchtower on July 22, 2010, 12:53:35 PM My vote: Xahar
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on July 24, 2010, 10:41:58 PM Ebowed
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Joe Republic on July 25, 2010, 11:51:38 AM I've been instructed to vote for Ebowed in this thread, so here I am, voting for Ebowed.
Good luck, my former running mate (briefly), in whatever office you're now running for. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 25, 2010, 01:00:47 PM This would bother me if it weren't so predictable.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 25, 2010, 01:56:56 PM It's an exact tie by my count, if either of you guys want to get more random people to vote for you.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Tender Branson on July 26, 2010, 12:12:59 AM I´ll vote for Ebowed.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 26, 2010, 07:38:29 AM Voting is now closed.
Ebowed: 10 vote(s) Xahar: 9 vote(s) (abstain): 1 vote(s) Ebowed is elected Constitutional Convention delegate for the Pacific. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 29, 2010, 07:42:40 AM In response to the looming rise in unemployment, as forecase by the Red Flag, I've taken the liberty of drawing up our very own version of the Senate's failed Hiring Incentives Act.
Here's the original Senate bill: Quote Hiring Incentives Act 1. Any non-manufacturing business with 200 employees or less in total shall be eligible for a $4,000 tax credit for each new individual they hire. 2. Any manufacturing business that hires a new employee shall be eligible for a $7,500 tax credit for each new individual they hire. 3. Any business that hires an individual that has been out of work for 30+ days will be exempt from paying Social Security payroll taxes on that employee. 4. The effects of this legislation shall expire one year after passage. Since we are but a region, and not the federal government, I think it's reasonable that we lower the values of the credits somewhat. Let's say, $2,000 for a non-manafacturing business and $4,000 for a manafacturing business. Obviously, item 3 doesn't apply on a regional basis, so we'll remove that. So, here's the text of the modified, regional, version of the HIA: Quote Pacific Hiring Incentives Act 1. Any non-manufacturing business with 200 employees or less in total will be eligible for a $2,000 tax credit for each new employee they hire. 2. Any manufacturing business that hires a new employee will be eligible for a $4,000 tax credit for each new employee they hire. 3. The effects of this legislation shall expire one year after passage. X Oakvale If there's any objections, feel free to offer an amendment. Otherwise, I'll open this for voting in a day or so. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 30, 2010, 06:40:19 AM Voting is now open on the following legislation and will conclude in one week.
Quote Pacific Hiring Incentives Act 1. Any non-manufacturing business with 200 employees or less in total will be eligible for a $2,000 tax credit for each new employee they hire. 2. Any manufacturing business that hires a new employee will be eligible for a $4,000 tax credit for each new employee they hire. 3. The effects of this legislation shall expire one year after passage. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on July 30, 2010, 06:40:46 AM Pacific Hiring Incentives Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 30, 2010, 06:48:36 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on July 30, 2010, 02:38:34 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on July 31, 2010, 01:03:38 AM Pacific Hiring Incentives Act: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on August 03, 2010, 12:16:44 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 03, 2010, 03:07:15 PM aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on August 06, 2010, 01:12:29 PM Voting has closed for Pacific Hiring Incentives Act.
Passed 6-0-0. x ArchangelZero Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on August 29, 2010, 03:57:52 PM Oh, look! A Constitutional amendment!
Seriously though, I think it's a step in the right direction, and kills two birds with the proverbial stone - makes the Lt. Governor's position relevant, and allows us to keep our bits of the wiki in a state of repair. :) Quote Giving the Lieutenant Governor something to actually do Amendment Whereas the Lieutenant Governor's responsibilities are currently vaguely defined and rarely carried out, 1) The Lieutenant Governor is hereby tasked with one job, and one only - to mantain articles on the Atlas Fantasy Wiki (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/) relevant to the Pacific region. 2) These articles include; https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Pacific_Region https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Pacific_Governor https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Pacific_Lt_Governor https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Pacific_Senator https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Pacific_Statute https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Pacific_Elected_Officials and others as desginated relevant by the Governor 3) When an event occurs that requires the wiki to be modified, e.g. the passing of a new bill, the election of a new official, etc, the Lieutenant Governor shall be notified and shall edit the relevant article to include the new information as soon as possible. 4) In this way, we can mantain the wiki to keep the information on the Pacific more relevant and up-to-date than much of the wiki. As per the Pacific's constitution, the people may vote upon any amendment that has been signed by five citizens, or the Governor. As such, X Oakvale. Voting on this amendment will begin a day from now. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 29, 2010, 04:02:03 PM Wow, some of those are years out of date.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on August 29, 2010, 04:03:03 PM Wow, some of those are years out of date. It's like a window into two years prior. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on August 29, 2010, 08:01:04 PM Aye.
Also, I seriously hope you merge the proposed Justice position with mine. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on August 30, 2010, 05:44:23 PM Aye
Also, I seriously hope you merge the proposed Justice position with mine. I'm still working on that amendment, so we'll see what happens. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 30, 2010, 09:29:07 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 30, 2010, 09:33:15 PM Voting now?
Aye, of course. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 31, 2010, 04:35:41 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 31, 2010, 08:56:48 AM Shouldn't the amendment specify who will officially be responsible for elections if not the Lt. Governor?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on August 31, 2010, 01:37:30 PM Shouldn't the amendment specify who will officially be responsible for elections if not the Lt. Governor? In practice I've noticed the Governor usually ends up doing so, but if it's a problem I'll tack on a clarification to another amendment at some later date. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on August 31, 2010, 04:20:28 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on September 02, 2010, 06:10:29 PM Now, is anyone gonna explain how to log in to the Wiki?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on September 03, 2010, 09:22:19 AM Now, is anyone gonna explain how to log in to the Wiki? You need to PM Dave to get wiki priveleges, if you haven't done so already. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on September 04, 2010, 11:05:35 PM Does anyone have a list of elected officials for the Pacific since 2008? I'm kinda stumped on this one...:(
Update: Just spent the night updating all the missing articles on the Statute. I also found one intriguing Law that I don't think has been repealed. Quote Pacific For the Children Act of 2006 Sponsor: Alcon (Technically proposed by Gabu) Passed: 5-0-0, April 2nd, 2006 1. All residents of the Southeast will be recognised by the Pacific Regional Government as "Bubba." 2. In the unlikely event that the Southeast ever gets a female resident, she will be referred to as "Bubba Phyllis." 3. The Pacific Regional Government henceforth considers the Southeastern Region to be an island, surrounded by water on all four sides. 4. June 3rd, previously Jefferson Davis Day, will now be recognised as Day of Pale White Men with High Cheekbones. 5. The current Southeastern Governor, and all subsequent Southeastern Governors, will be declared the State Tree of all states in the Pacific Region. Southeastern Lt. Governors will be declared the State Squaredance. 6. The penalty for breaching of this act is social ostracisation and ten minutes of freakishly high-speed community service. 7. The Southeast is the worst region ever and really should take a bath and implement water chlorination or something. 8. All Southeasterners are communists. 9. The Southeast no longer borders the Pacific via Texas, because that would just be really icky to be that close to the Southeast. 10. The Southeast is not allowed to retaliate for anything because the Pacific is rubber and the Southeast is glue and whatever they do bounces off of us and sticks to them. 11. The Pacific Region is officially declared the best region ever. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 05, 2010, 04:19:18 PM Now, is anyone gonna explain how to log in to the Wiki? You need to PM Dave to get wiki priveleges, if you haven't done so already. ;) Ugh... I requested an access to the wiki like 4 times before he finally responded. So don't be overoptymistic :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on September 05, 2010, 04:52:45 PM Now, is anyone gonna explain how to log in to the Wiki? You need to PM Dave to get wiki priveleges, if you haven't done so already. ;) Ugh... I requested an access to the wiki like 4 times before he finally responded. So don't be overoptymistic :P I already got in. That's why there are no more invalid links on the Pacific Statute Article.:D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 06, 2010, 05:31:19 PM abstain
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on September 06, 2010, 09:37:55 PM Seriously? You don't want me to have more work? :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on September 07, 2010, 08:19:23 AM Unless I'm much mistaken, that's a week, so voting on this amendment - the 8th Amendment to the Pacific Constitution, to be precise, is concluded.
The amendment requires a two-thirds majority to pass, it has: 6 ayes, 1 abstention, The proposed amendment has passed, becomes part of the regional Constitution. X Oakvale Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on September 07, 2010, 07:36:20 PM Anybody know how to edit the Pacific Citizens List table? Unlike the other regions, ours has been added in through some other page. Also, does anyone know how to edit the little widget on the bottom with all the links to the various Pacific Articles?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on September 10, 2010, 07:11:13 PM Rest assured that although I have randomly registered in the wilds of Alaska, it's really a moot point since I'm presumably living where my offices are, our capital of San Francisco, as opposed to my "home" state. :P
Anybody know how to edit the Pacific Citizens List table? Unlike the other regions, ours has been added in through some other page. Also, does anyone know how to edit the little widget on the bottom with all the links to the various Pacific Articles? I wish I could help, but I'm frankly useless at all matters wiki. :( I'd suggest looking at the FAQs for Wikipedia, maybe? I don't know. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on September 20, 2010, 02:04:48 AM For the little "widget" at the bottom of Pacific pages, it is at Template:Pacific. To add it on a page, type {{Pacific}}.
For the voter list, it is in the Template:voter list pacific. The list in itself is made by templates, one for each voters, following the format Template:Voter XXX. Like Template:Voter Alcon or Template:Voter MaxQue. There is probably a way to do a normal table instead of that silly mess. I could look that if you ask me (or just copy another region list and change names). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on September 20, 2010, 09:17:36 PM For the little "widget" at the bottom of Pacific pages, it is at Template:Pacific. To add it on a page, type {{Pacific}}. For the voter list, it is in the Template:voter list pacific. The list in itself is made by templates, one for each voters, following the format Template:Voter XXX. Like Template:Voter Alcon or Template:Voter MaxQue. There is probably a way to do a normal table instead of that silly mess. I could look that if you ask me (or just copy another region list and change names). Thanks! But do you know how to edit the template itself? I mean I could just bypass everything by making it simpler but where's the fun in that? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on September 25, 2010, 05:30:17 PM Oh, look, another random Constitutional amendment. Yes, I'm aware we tried this before, back in the mists, of time, but there's a few key differences this time around which should make the position worthwhile - if nothing else, hopefully some entertaining constitutional crises will occur. :P
Quote Establishing the position of "Pacific Justice" Whereas there is currently no constitutional overview of laws passed by the legislature, 1. The position of Pacific Justice is hereby established. 2. The Pacific Justice shall be appointed by the Governor for a life term, and subject to confirmation by a plurality vote of the Pacific legislature. 3. The role of the Justice will be as follows: - To automatically review each piece of legislation passed by the legislature to confirm whether it is constitutional in accordance with the Constitution of the Pacific region. In the event that the Justice finds the legislation in question unconstitutional, the law in question will be struck down. o The Justice may, in addition, ask the legislature to modify the legislation in question to bring it in line with the regional Constitution, before it is passed, subject to the discretion of the Justice. - To refer legislation to the Atlasian Supreme Court, specifically in cases where the legislation in question does not violate Pacific law but does violate federal law. - To determine whether an elected official has committed unconstitutional offenses. Whether these offenses constitute grounds for impeachment/recall shall, however, remain the decision of the legislature. 4. The Justice may be impeached by the legislature for misconduct in the following way: 1) A citizen may propose that the Justice be impeached. 2) If this petition receives no less than five signatures from other citizens of the Pacific - or, as with legislation, the signature of the Governor - within one week of proposal, it may be voted on by the legislature as with regular legislation and elections. 3) A two-thirds majority shall be necessary for the impeachment petition to be successful. 4) In the event that the impeachment process is successful, the Justice shall immediately cease to hold office, and the Governor must name a replacement, again subject to confirmation by plurality vote of the Pacific Legislature. 5) Vaguely-relatedcaveat-to-clarify-something-from-the-Eight-Amendment: The Governor shall be responsible for supervising all elections in the Pacific, and tallying the votes in such. If the Governor's integrity or objectivity comes under question, the Justice may ask the Governor to relinquish this duty, and supervise the election his/herself. X Oakvale BTW, this my current version of the bill, but I'm not married to it - I'm more than willing to tweak it to make it more acceptable if this version fails to pass. :) And, naturally, I stick with my promise to introduce a ton of blatantly illegal bills if this position is created, in an effort to create some activity in this place. :P EDIT: Oh yeah, uh, voting's open now and will continue for a week. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on September 26, 2010, 05:38:31 PM Stunningly, I'll vote Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on September 30, 2010, 10:02:27 AM The hotbed of activity that this vote has been (:P) has convinced me it's probably good idea to assemble some kind of list of active Pacific voters I/we can PM whenever something actually happens.
It also strengthens the case for an elected legislature, I think. ;) Oh, and voting is still open if anyone wants to vote for the hell of it. I mean, it would be nice if it passed with 100% of the vote, but when there's only one vote that's not so impressive. I understand though, that this thread isn't the most active around, so it makes sense that people generally overlook it. We need a regional board. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on September 30, 2010, 06:00:29 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on September 30, 2010, 06:11:16 PM I don't think there's really any need for change here. There isn't a lot for the regional officials to do already and creating a third position seems like a move in the wrong direction to me. I'm going to vote nay for now. :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on September 30, 2010, 06:12:41 PM I don't think there's really any need for change here. There isn't a lot for the regional officials to do already and creating a third position seems like a move in the wrong direction to me. I'm going to vote nay for now. :P Rest assured I'll introduce a blatantly unconstitutional bill every day if the post is created. ;) But seriously, we can always get rid of the position in a few months if it ends up a disastrous failure, so it shouldn't be a problem either way. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 02, 2010, 02:56:24 AM Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 02, 2010, 03:07:41 AM Aye.
My justification is: Why not? :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 02, 2010, 08:15:00 AM Aye. My justification is: Why not? :P That's my justification for literally everything I ever do as Governor. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 03, 2010, 12:58:36 PM Unless I'm much mistaken, voting's closed.
With a disappointingly, if not entirely unexpectedly, low turnout, the amendment passes. 3 AYE 2 NAY The position of Pacific Justice is hereby created. It will probably be vacant for a while as I draw up some potential candidates. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 10, 2010, 03:35:01 PM Well, after a long search and closely examining several candidates, I am pleased to nominated fuzzybigfoot (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=5422), or, if you prefer, Mr. Fuzzleton, for the new position of Pacific Justice.
My intial line of thinking was to nominate an old hand, someone with massive experience in Atlasia and in Pacific affairs, but then I realised something. New blood is exactly what this region needs - fuzzy's relative, er, "newbie"-ness is his biggest strength. I think breathing new life into this region requires new voters, and new officials, and I can't imagine a better candidate for the job. Anyway, down to brass tacks. There's a week-long confirmation period, which follows the same procedure as when we vote on a bill. I'm sure the nominee would be happy to answer questions, so if there's anything on your mind don't hesitate to ask. :) So, voting to confirm fuzzybigfoot as Pacific Justice is now open, and will remain so for one week. Feel free to ask questions of the nominee. Obviously, I vote aye to confirm. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 11, 2010, 01:28:58 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on October 11, 2010, 09:41:51 AM Resounding Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 11, 2010, 12:06:29 PM Aye :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 11, 2010, 04:42:09 PM aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on October 13, 2010, 02:00:40 AM As the proposed new Constitution must be ratified by the regions, I am posting this public service announcement in the threads of the regional legislatures:
Very Important Announcement The Constitutional Convention is reaching its end, with the final two documents being voted on as we speak. At this time, delegates and all Atlasians are welcome to offer their thoughts on an amendment to ANY part of the new Constitution, which will be considered all at once in one final amendment vote coming up in the next 48-72 hours. This means that any changes you would like to see to the current document should be offered right now. Here is the relevant announcement in the Convention thread: During the next 48 hours, please offer any amendments, as well as debate, that you would like to see considered for any part of the document. This is your last chance to make finishing touches to any of the more controversial changes, including dual-office holding, regional legislatures, the legislative restart, etc. Feel free to offer opposing variations to amendments as well, which will then be brought up as a package vote. Here is the relevant links to help you out: Constitutional Convention thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=120987.0) Constitutional Convention completed documents page (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Constitutional_Convention_Completed_Documents) Please review the completed documents and post here or in the Convention thread with your comments, ideas or amendments. I would be happy to offer well thought out amendments on behalf of non-delegates. This is a crucial moment in this process, as the next step is a final vote and then presentation to the regions for approval. Thanks, ~President Purple State Articles VII and VIII have been passed and the entire proposed Third Constitution is now nearly set. There is now just under 24 hours remaining for the proposal of amendments to any part of this document, before a final vote and presentation to the regions for the ratification process. Please, I implore all the citizens of Atlasia, read through the completed documents page (linked in the quoted announcement above) and propose any amendments in this thread or in the Constitutional Convention thread (also linked above). Even if you don't know how to word the amendment properly, provide your thoughts and I will help you out. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 17, 2010, 02:22:08 PM First of all, fuzzybigfoot is unanimously confirmed as Pacific Justice. :)
Secondly, please all vote (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=126196.0) on the ratification of the Constitutional Convention in the voting booth. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on October 17, 2010, 04:44:34 PM First of all, fuzzybigfoot is unanimously confirmed as Pacific Justice. :) Secondly, please all vote (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=126196.0) on the ratification of the Constitutional Convention in the voting booth. Thank you Oakvale, and the Pacific Legislation, for giving me the honor of upholding our constitution in the Pacific! :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 20, 2010, 11:38:03 AM I've got a random bill for you guys to vote on and bicker about. This is kinda mashed together, so let me know if you notice any major problems. :P
Quote Math Is Not Fun But It Can Get You Money For College Act 1. Whereas we need smart people; The Pacific will provide funding for the college tuition of students that take math or science-related degrees, up to a sum of $10,000 per annum, for up to four years of college. 1.1 What constitutes a math or science-related degree shall be decided by lovable bureaucrats if there is a dispute. 1.2 If the college tuition costs less than the maximum $10,000 figure per annum, the students will not be granted the maximum figure. 1.3 In the event that college tuition exceeds the $10,000 per annum figure, the student may apply for additional assisstance, to be considered on a case-by-case basis. 2. This program will run for six years, and may be renewed or altered at expiration. 3. This legislation shall be funded by a $0.25 levy on cigarettes. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 20, 2010, 04:20:15 PM How about replacing section 3 with an $0.25 increase in the gasoline tax?
And while I appreciate the humorous writing that permeates the proposal, the insinuation that other subjects are less intellectually challenging or worthwhile is not a sentiment I wish to place into Pacific statute. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 20, 2010, 06:08:13 PM How about replacing section 3 with an $0.25 increase in the gasoline tax? And while I appreciate the humorous writing that permeates the proposal, the insinuation that other subjects are less intellectually challenging or worthwhile is not a sentiment I wish to place into Pacific statute. A) Aye, that's probably a better idea. Less regressive, and has an arguable environmental bonus, too. B) Fair enough, it's a little silly as written, I'll be the first to admit. Here's a more appropriate version- Quote Educational Incentives Act 1.The Pacific will provide funding for the college tuition of students that take math or science-related degrees, up to a sum of $10,000 per annum, for up to four years of college. 1.1 What constitutes a math or science-related degree shall be decided by the Pacific Department of Education in case of a dispute. 1.2 If the college tuition costs less than the maximum $10,000 figure per annum, the students will not be granted the maximum figure. 1.3 In the event that college tuition exceeds the $10,000 per annum figure, the student may apply for additional assisstance, to be considered on a case-by-case basis. 2. This program will run for six years, and may be renewed or altered at expiration. 3. This legislation shall be funded by a $0.25 levy on gasoline. Hopefully that's a little better. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: tmthforu94 on October 20, 2010, 07:28:27 PM I liked cigarettes better than gasoline. The last thing Americans need right now is higher gas prices. I see a lot more people being unhappy with that than happy. At least with cigarettes you're encouraging people to enter this field as well as encouraging them to quit filling their lungs with tar.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 21, 2010, 03:55:28 AM Why only maths and science ? I think economy, philosophy or literature are equally (if not more) important.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 21, 2010, 05:29:49 AM Why only maths and science ? I think economy, philosophy or literature are equally (if not more) important. Because for this purpose I'm assuming that Atlasia mirrors the RL United States, where mathematics and science graduates are in short supply. In response to thmthforu, the advantage of a gas tax is that it spreads the burden over all income groups - the problem with taxes on "vice" goods is that they mainly impact lower-income taxpayers. :) Honestly, the reason it was a cigarette levy in the first place was because cigarettes are one of the "go to" sources for government income. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 21, 2010, 05:59:32 AM I like the modified bill.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 21, 2010, 08:58:37 AM I like the modified bill. Glad to hear it. :) I'll leave this open for debate for a few more hours, then if there's no objection I'll open voting. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 21, 2010, 10:00:58 AM Yeah, I see. Makes sense then. ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 24, 2010, 04:48:42 PM I'll open voting on the education thingy after the elections are finished. :)
Also, Announcement or something: Quote On behalf of the Pacific region, I would like to express my solidarity with the huddled masses of the Midwest, who are currently without a Governor or Lieutenant Governor, and must exist in a state of anarchy until the crisis can be averted. The Pacific region affirms its friendship with the Midwest and expresses its hope that a peaceful and appropriate solution can be swiftly found to this problem. We will also provide help in whatever form needed. X Oakvale EDIT: A second announcement or something: Quote On behalf of the Pacific region, I would like to express my happiness that the situation in the Midwest turned out to be something of a misunderstanding. Also, we still have loads of emergency supplies, and rice, if you guys want it. X Oakvale Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on October 25, 2010, 03:18:12 AM Thought I'd introduce this.
Aaron Burr Day Creation Act. 1. January 13th is hereby made a regional holiday, known as Aaron Burr Day. 2. Aaron Burr has nothing to do with this holiday. X Jbrase Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 25, 2010, 08:02:43 AM Though I'd introduce this. Aaron Burr Day Creation Act. 1. January 13th is hereby made a regional holiday, known as Aaron Burr Day. 2. Aaron Burr has nothing to do with this holiday. X Jbrase Since when you are a Pacific citizen ? ??? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 25, 2010, 08:07:34 AM Though I'd introduce this. Aaron Burr Day Creation Act. 1. January 13th is hereby made a regional holiday, known as Aaron Burr Day. 2. Aaron Burr has nothing to do with this holiday. X Jbrase Since when you are a Pacific citizen ? ??? Since yesterday, apparently. I'm happy to welcome Jbrase to the region, anyway. :) And, what the hell, I sign the Aaron Burr Day Creation Act - I think I get the reference - and open it for voting. X Oakvale Oh, I'm also opening voting on the Educational Incentives Act. Both bills will be voted upon for one week. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 25, 2010, 08:08:09 AM Educational Incentives Act: Aye
Aaron Burr Day Creation Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 25, 2010, 08:16:02 AM I'm confused. Wasn't Jbrase
Anyways : Educational Incentives Act: Aye Aaron Burr Day Creation Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on October 25, 2010, 08:41:26 AM I'm confused. Wasn't Jbrase Anyways : Educational Incentives Act: Aye Aaron Burr Day Creation Act: Aye PiT's now Emperor of the South, so I guess either Jbrase got term-limited. Educational Incentives Act: Aye Aaron Burr Day Creation Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on October 25, 2010, 10:03:04 AM I'm confused. Wasn't Jbrase Anyways : Educational Incentives Act: Aye Aaron Burr Day Creation Act: Aye PiT's now Emperor of the South, so I guess either Jbrase got term-limited. Educational Incentives Act: Aye Aaron Burr Day Creation Act: Aye They do not have term limits, I just felt it was time for someone else to take over since I had governed for most the year. Educational Incentives Act: Abstain Aaron Burr Day Creation Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 25, 2010, 12:11:19 PM Well, glad to see some dissonant voice joining the region. As Oakvale said, the best way to make Pacific a more pluralist person is to have people from every political side joining it. So, welcome. ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on October 25, 2010, 03:42:19 PM Educational Incentives Act: Aye
Aaron Burr Day Creation Act: Abstain Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 25, 2010, 03:49:22 PM Educational Incentives Act: Aye
Aaron Burr Day Creation Act: Abstain Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 25, 2010, 06:15:27 PM Aye
Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 25, 2010, 06:32:29 PM Educational Incentives - Aye
Aaron Burr Day - Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on October 28, 2010, 02:00:27 PM As Pacific Justice, I declare "Aaron Burr Day" bill unconstitutional, on the grounds that it doesn't explain how it's primary contents can"promote the general welfare"-(Preamble to the Pacific Constitution). It cannot be passed.
I hereby declare that the "Education Initiatives" bill is constitutional. The bill lays out it's in detail; benefits it offers to those in Atlasia. It violates no legal boundaries set by the Pacific Constitution. It may be passed by the Pacific Legislature. No offense, Jbrase, Oakvale or Archangel. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 28, 2010, 04:29:34 PM As Pacific Justice, I declare "Aaron Burr Day" bill unconstitutional, on the grounds that it doesn't explain how it's primary contents can"promote the general welfare"-(Preamble to the Pacific Constitution). It cannot be passed. In the light of this event, I'd like to challenge the constitutionality of the "Accuracy in balloting Act". Hopefully we can get rid of that useles trash : It is an act designed to rename Xahar whenever he runs for office in the Pacific on our ballots. It renames him "Chode" on ballots for regional positions. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 28, 2010, 04:58:37 PM As Pacific Justice, I declare "Aaron Burr Day" bill unconstitutional, on the grounds that it doesn't explain how it's primary contents can"promote the general welfare"-(Preamble to the Pacific Constitution). It cannot be passed. In the light of this event, I'd like to challenge the constitutionality of the "Accuracy in balloting Act". Hopefully we can get rid of that useles trash : It is an act designed to rename Xahar whenever he runs for office in the Pacific on our ballots. It renames him "Chode" on ballots for regional positions. It's funny you bring that up, I was feeling vaguely mean for voting for it and was considering trying for a repeal just yesterday. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on October 28, 2010, 06:18:48 PM As Pacific Justice, I declare "Aaron Burr Day" bill unconstitutional, on the grounds that it doesn't explain how it's primary contents can"promote the general welfare"-(Preamble to the Pacific Constitution). It cannot be passed. In the light of this event, I'd like to challenge the constitutionality of the "Accuracy in balloting Act". Hopefully we can get rid of that useles trash : It is an act designed to rename Xahar whenever he runs for office in the Pacific on our ballots. It renames him "Chode" on ballots for regional positions. It's funny you bring that up, I was feeling vaguely mean for voting for it and was considering trying for a repeal just yesterday. People have the right to choose a name (Freedom of Speech, Article 3, Clause 2, Pacific Constitution) and use it as representation in the eye of the law, thus they cannot be renamed otherwise on a legal document. A ballot is a legal document (it's printed by the government, the overseers of the law), thus having Xahar's name changed on such is illegal, hereby making the "Accuracy in Balloting Act" void from hereon out. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on October 28, 2010, 09:34:35 PM No offense, Jbrase, Oakvale or Archangel. You passed the test.;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on October 28, 2010, 10:35:42 PM No offense, Jbrase, Oakvale or Archangel. You passed the test.;) Oh good :) That would've been bad if you guys were serious XD Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on October 28, 2010, 11:27:29 PM No offense, Jbrase, Oakvale or Archangel. You passed the test.;) Oh good :) That would've been bad if you guys were serious XD How do you know that we're not serious? But yeah, good job on that. You just saved me some Wiki work.:) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on October 29, 2010, 12:10:22 AM As Pacific Justice, I declare "Aaron Burr Day" bill unconstitutional, on the grounds that it doesn't explain how it's primary contents can"promote the general welfare"-(Preamble to the Pacific Constitution). It cannot be passed. Not that I am disputing your ruling, but doesn't a citizen need to challenge the bill in court before the judicial branch can make judgment on laws? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on October 29, 2010, 12:25:45 AM As Pacific Justice, I declare "Aaron Burr Day" bill unconstitutional, on the grounds that it doesn't explain how it's primary contents can"promote the general welfare"-(Preamble to the Pacific Constitution). It cannot be passed. Not that I am disputing your ruling, but doesn't a citizen need to challenge the bill in court before the judicial branch can make judgment on laws? The latest amendment to our constitution states that the Justice must first analyze all legislation and determine whether it is constitutional or not before it can go into effect. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 29, 2010, 07:48:24 AM I must say I'm pretty chuffed to see the position of Pacific Justice working as intended. Stellar job, fuzzy. :)
Also, I'd like to clarify something about what Jbrase said - in our system, as Archangel pointed out, the Justice automatically reviews all new legislation passed. In real life, this would be an unworkable and impractical concept, but it creates a healthy amount of activity in Atlasia. :P However, your post does apply to legislation passed before the position was established. In other words, old legislation is reviewed only when specifically challenged by a citizen, as in the case of the, uh, chode bill. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on October 29, 2010, 11:29:19 PM I must say I'm pretty chuffed to see the position of Pacific Justice working as intended. Stellar job, fuzzy. :) Also, I'd like to clarify something about what Jbrase said - in our system, as Archangel pointed out, the Justice automatically reviews all new legislation passed. In real life, this would be an unworkable and impractical concept, but it creates a healthy amount of activity in Atlasia. :P However, your post does apply to legislation passed before the position was established. In other words, old legislation is reviewed only when specifically challenged by a citizen, as in the case of the, uh, chode bill. Of course, which is why I wouldn't have ordered the repeal of the chode bill without the challenge from Antonio. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on October 30, 2010, 01:35:54 AM Should I delete unconstitutional items from the statute and the article altogether or should I just state that it was deemed unconstitutional in the Wiki?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on October 30, 2010, 03:15:06 AM Should I delete unconstitutional items from the statute and the article altogether or should I just state that it was deemed unconstitutional in the Wiki? Maybe just say that it was deemed unconstitutional, but put in the archives for future reference if need be. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 30, 2010, 07:52:16 AM I think legislation declared unconstitutional should be cleared on the wiki, in order to make it clearer. Maybe someone could create a "Pacific repealed legislation" page.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on October 30, 2010, 09:17:06 AM Should I delete unconstitutional items from the statute and the article altogether or should I just state that it was deemed unconstitutional in the Wiki? Maybe just say that it was deemed unconstitutional, but put in the archives for future reference if need be. That'd be my personal opinon on it, certainly. I dunno, put an asterix * after it or something to explain it was struck down. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on October 30, 2010, 01:13:02 PM What I did last night was put on in parenthesis "Deemed Unconstitutional: Date"
Like for the Accuracy Act here: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Pacific_Statute#Passed_under_Governor_Bgwah https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Accuracy_in_Balloting_Act Anyways, I could create a Repealed Statute page and move all repealed laws there, if you wish (there's a couple more that are still in the statute that were repealed from other administrations) There's also the matter of whether the Pacific Justice should be placed under the elected officials article. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 30, 2010, 05:02:56 PM When something is repealed, you usually just put "Repealed" in parenthesis on the statue page, so what Arch did works best I think.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on October 30, 2010, 10:44:45 PM Amendment to The Religious Institution Classification Act
The Religious Institution Classification Act is hereby amended to read: 1. Any church or religious institution that requires its members to pay fees shall henceforth be recognized as businesses by the Pacific Region. 2. Every other church or religious institution shall be tax exempt. These groups shall lose their tax exempt status should they: a. Donate money to a political campaign. b. Endorse anyone running for public office. c. Begin requiring members to pay fee's for any reason other than paying for damaged property. d. Their school programs do not follow the required curriculum set forth by The Pacific. X Jbrase Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on October 30, 2010, 11:32:27 PM Amendment to The Religious Institution Classification Act The Religious Institution Classification Act is hereby amended to read: 1. Any church or religious institution that requires its members to pay fees shall henceforth be recognized as businesses by the Pacific Region. 2. Every other church or religious institution shall be tax exempt. These groups shall lose their tax exempt status should they: a. Donate money to a political campaign. b. Endorse anyone running for public office. c. Begin requiring members to pay fee's for any reason other than paying for damaged property. X Jbrase I think this makes sense and puts a little more definition to the original law (which is honestly pretty vague). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 31, 2010, 01:40:47 AM No, that completely alters the intent of the original law, which is the author's hope, obviously.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 31, 2010, 03:59:35 AM I'd support the bill if you add a provision requiring their school programs to be conform to the Pacific's programs (so that they can't teach creationism etc).
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on October 31, 2010, 11:04:50 AM No, that completely alters the intent of the original law, which is the author's hope, obviously. I wasn't here for the original vote, so what was the original intent? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on October 31, 2010, 12:28:07 PM I'd support the bill if you add a provision requiring their school programs to be conform to the Pacific's programs (so that they can't teach creationism etc). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 31, 2010, 01:30:06 PM Fine then. ;)
Amendment to The Religious Institution Classification Act The Religious Institution Classification Act is hereby amended to read: 1. Any church or religious institution that requires its members to pay fees shall henceforth be recognized as businesses by the Pacific Region. 2. Every other church or religious institution shall be tax exempt. These groups shall lose their tax exempt status should they: a. Donate money to a political campaign. b. Endorse anyone running for public office. c. Begin requiring members to pay fee's for any reason other than paying for damaged property. d. Their school programs do not follow the required curriculum set forth by The Pacific. X Jbrase X Antonio V Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on October 31, 2010, 03:03:52 PM No, that completely alters the intent of the original law, which is the author's hope, obviously. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 31, 2010, 03:06:52 PM I'm with Ebowed on this one, it seems. I see no reason to give churches special treatment.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on October 31, 2010, 03:15:06 PM I'm with Ebowed on this one, it seems. I see no reason to give churches special treatment. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on October 31, 2010, 03:27:49 PM I appreciate it if you guys could message me the Bills, that would make sure I didn't miss anything. I will still be on this board, of course. ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on October 31, 2010, 04:41:02 PM Fine then. ;) Amendment to The Religious Institution Classification Act The Religious Institution Classification Act is hereby amended to read: 1. Any church or religious institution that requires its members to pay fees shall henceforth be recognized as businesses by the Pacific Region. 2. Every other church or religious institution shall be tax exempt. These groups shall lose their tax exempt status should they: a. Donate money to a political campaign. b. Endorse anyone running for public office. c. Begin requiring members to pay fee's for any reason other than paying for damaged property. d. Their school programs do not follow the required curriculum set forth by The Pacific. X Jbrase X Antonio V I officially approve this bill as constitutionally fit. It may be passed by the Pacific Legislature. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 31, 2010, 09:17:42 PM No, that completely alters the intent of the original law, which is the author's hope, obviously. I wasn't here for the original vote, so what was the original intent? To remove the tax exemption that churches are provided with in the United States. This proposal restores the tax exemption. I just wonder if Jbrase's wording covers the LDS' efforts on behalf of Prop 8 in California. Clearly under any reasonable interpretation they would lose their status, but the real life IRS appears uninterested so far. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on October 31, 2010, 09:20:48 PM No, that completely alters the intent of the original law, which is the author's hope, obviously. I wasn't here for the original vote, so what was the original intent? To remove the tax exemption that churches are provided with in the United States. This proposal restores the tax exemption. I just wonder if Jbrase's wording covers the LDS' efforts on behalf of Prop 8 in California. Clearly under any reasonable interpretation they would lose their status, but the real life IRS appears uninterested so far. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on October 31, 2010, 09:21:10 PM I suppose this thread should be moved to the new Regional Governments board.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on October 31, 2010, 11:04:51 PM I suppose this thread should be moved to the new Regional Governments board. Don't we need a moderator to do that? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 01, 2010, 05:27:20 AM Well, maybe we can simply start a new legislature thread there.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 01, 2010, 02:03:04 PM I've PMed Gustaf and asked him to move this thread to the new board.
Also, The Education Incentives Act passed with a vote of 8-0, with one abstaining vote. X Oakvale The Aaron Burr Day Creation Act fails to pass with a vote of 5-4, although it was apparently unconstitutional anyway so there you go. I gotta say I'm enjoing the current debate about Jbrase's bill. I'm still undecided as to whether to support it or not. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on November 01, 2010, 02:33:10 PM I would support Jbrase's proposal.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 01, 2010, 07:15:55 PM I would support Jbrase's proposal. () TOO LATE!!! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 01, 2010, 08:43:33 PM I would support Jbrase's proposal. () TOO LATE!!! :'( Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 01, 2010, 09:25:53 PM I would support Jbrase's proposal. () TOO LATE!!! :'( Sorry, but it's true. You had that other bill, though. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on November 02, 2010, 01:32:33 AM I am confused.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 02, 2010, 01:46:39 PM About what? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Purple State on November 03, 2010, 09:03:17 PM Just a question, why doesn't the Pacific move their legislature thread to the Elections main board so that new members are more aware of its existence? Wow, this thread is in the same board as all the other legislatures? I proposed that over 30 pages ago. Progress! :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 04, 2010, 09:21:21 AM Just a question, why doesn't the Pacific move their legislature thread to the Elections main board so that new members are more aware of its existence? Wow, this thread is in the same board as all the other legislatures? I proposed that over 30 pages ago. Progress! :P Obviously I take full credit for this. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 05, 2010, 09:02:18 AM People of the Pacific, I submit today a bill of primary importance :
We'll miss you Act 1. November 2th shall hereby be a mourning day known as the Russ, we'll miss you Day, in the honor of former Senator Russ Feingold. 2. During his day, any household that asks for shall be gratuitously supplied in yard signs, posters, T-shirts or pins displaying the words "Russ, we'll miss you", or a picture of Russ Feingold. 3. A household shall be entitled under section 2) to a maximum of two previously cited items. 4. No household that has already received two previously cited items from the Pacific government under section 2) in the previous 10 years shall be entitled to the provision of section 2). I'd like to attract the attention of Mr Pacific Justice on the fact that, as fmr Senator Feingold has been restlessly working for general welfare for the last 18 years, the We'll miss you Act can be considered as promoting the general welfare. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 05, 2010, 10:00:07 AM People of the Pacific, I submit today a bill of primary importance : We'll miss you Act 1. November 2th shall hereby be a mourning day known as the Russ, we'll miss you Day, in the honor of former Senator Russ Feingold. 2. During his day, any household that asks for shall be gratuitously supplied in yard signs, posters, T-shirts or pins displaying the words "Russ, we'll miss you", or a picture of Russ Feingold. 3. A household shall be entitled under section 2) to a maximum of two previously cited items. 4. No household that has already received two previously cited items from the Pacific government under section 2) in the previous 10 years shall be entitled to the provision of section 2). I'd like to attract the attention of Mr Pacific Justice on the fact that, as fmr Senator Feingold has been restlessly working for general welfare for the last 18 years, the We'll miss you Act can be considered as promoting the general welfare. I support this with no hesitation.:'( Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 05, 2010, 01:37:38 PM People of the Pacific, I submit today a bill of primary importance : We'll miss you Act 1. November 2th shall hereby be a mourning day known as the Russ, we'll miss you Day, in the honor of former Senator Russ Feingold. 2. During his day, any household that asks for shall be gratuitously supplied in yard signs, posters, T-shirts or pins displaying the words "Russ, we'll miss you", or a picture of Russ Feingold. 3. A household shall be entitled under section 2) to a maximum of two previously cited items. 4. No household that has already received two previously cited items from the Pacific government under section 2) in the previous 10 years shall be entitled to the provision of section 2). I'd like to attract the attention of Mr Pacific Justice on the fact that, as fmr Senator Feingold has been restlessly working for general welfare for the last 18 years, the We'll miss you Act can be considered as promoting the general welfare. Absolutely! :( X Oakvale. Let's put it to a vote. AYE Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on November 05, 2010, 02:53:06 PM Nay.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 05, 2010, 02:59:45 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 05, 2010, 04:56:58 PM People of the Pacific, I submit today a bill of primary importance : We'll miss you Act 1. November 2th shall hereby be a mourning day known as the Russ, we'll miss you Day, in the honor of former Senator Russ Feingold. 2. During his day, any household that asks for shall be gratuitously supplied in yard signs, posters, T-shirts or pins displaying the words "Russ, we'll miss you", or a picture of Russ Feingold. 3. A household shall be entitled under section 2) to a maximum of two previously cited items. 4. No household that has already received two previously cited items from the Pacific government under section 2) in the previous 10 years shall be entitled to the provision of section 2). I'd like to attract the attention of Mr Pacific Justice on the fact that, as fmr Senator Feingold has been restlessly working for general welfare for the last 18 years, the We'll miss you Act can be considered as promoting the general welfare. You're right. Yes, this will bring closure to all those who will miss Russ, and help them deal with this loss. I resoundingly approve this bill as constitutional. It may be passed. (A single tear glistens in the Justice's eye) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 05, 2010, 09:38:11 PM Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 06, 2010, 01:34:18 PM Hey guys, we need more votes !
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 06, 2010, 01:51:52 PM People of the Pacific, I submit today a bill of primary importance : We'll miss you Act 1. November 2th shall hereby be a mourning day known as the Russ, we'll miss you Day, in the honor of former Senator Russ Feingold. 2. During his day, any household that asks for shall be gratuitously supplied in yard signs, posters, T-shirts or pins displaying the words "Russ, we'll miss you", or a picture of Russ Feingold. 3. A household shall be entitled under section 2) to a maximum of two previously cited items. 4. No household that has already received two previously cited items from the Pacific government under section 2) in the previous 10 years shall be entitled to the provision of section 2). I'd like to attract the attention of Mr Pacific Justice on the fact that, as fmr Senator Feingold has been restlessly working for general welfare for the last 18 years, the We'll miss you Act can be considered as promoting the general welfare. You're right. Yes, this will bring closure to all those who will miss Russ, and help them deal with this loss. I resoundingly approve this bill as constitutional. It may be passed. (A single tear glistens in the Justice's eye) I think Feingold was one of the better Dem senators, but when you consider he does not exist in Atlasia this bill seems in no way constitutional. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 06, 2010, 05:25:19 PM People of the Pacific, I submit today a bill of primary importance : We'll miss you Act 1. November 2th shall hereby be a mourning day known as the Russ, we'll miss you Day, in the honor of former Senator Russ Feingold. 2. During his day, any household that asks for shall be gratuitously supplied in yard signs, posters, T-shirts or pins displaying the words "Russ, we'll miss you", or a picture of Russ Feingold. 3. A household shall be entitled under section 2) to a maximum of two previously cited items. 4. No household that has already received two previously cited items from the Pacific government under section 2) in the previous 10 years shall be entitled to the provision of section 2). I'd like to attract the attention of Mr Pacific Justice on the fact that, as fmr Senator Feingold has been restlessly working for general welfare for the last 18 years, the We'll miss you Act can be considered as promoting the general welfare. You're right. Yes, this will bring closure to all those who will miss Russ, and help them deal with this loss. I resoundingly approve this bill as constitutional. It may be passed. (A single tear glistens in the Justice's eye) I think Feingold was one of the better Dem senators, but when you consider he does not exist in Atlasia this bill seems in no way constitutional. I think it is, it does provide people with certain objects as well as an open day for mourning, which could be seen as welfare. And it helps people come to terms with their loses. You can provide a bill which institutes a holiday, just not one that say "This day will be seen as this person's name day." It should have some reason for why the bill is created. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 07, 2010, 04:17:49 PM Who is this Russ Feingold? A Senator from some alternate universe? :D
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 07, 2010, 04:51:51 PM Who is this Russ Feingold? A Senator from some alternate universe? :D Maybe he was a senator of another civilization a few years before Atlasia was founded, and he disappeared recently. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 08, 2010, 08:35:01 AM Hey everybody,
After thinking about it for a bit, I'm going to have to side with those who say the Justice's proposal is unconstitutional. :( However, were it to be rewritten as a mere resolution mourning the loss of the fictional character "Sen. Feingold" in, uh, David Cronenberg's America or something, I don't think there'd be any objection to such. ;) As is, I'll have to change my vote to NAY. Sorry. In other news, after some reflection, I'm pleased to announce my support for Jbrase's proposal - Amendment to The Religious Institution Classification Act The Religious Institution Classification Act is hereby amended to read: 1. Any church or religious institution that requires its members to pay fees shall henceforth be recognized as businesses by the Pacific Region. 2. Every other church or religious institution shall be tax exempt. These groups shall lose their tax exempt status should they: a. Donate money to a political campaign. b. Endorse anyone running for public office. c. Begin requiring members to pay fee's for any reason other than paying for damaged property. d. Their school programs do not follow the required curriculum set forth by The Pacific. X Jbrase X Oakvale I'll leave it open for debate for another day or so, then open voting. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 09, 2010, 02:13:09 PM Okay, voting is now open on JBrase's amendment/bill, and will remain so for a week. You know the drill.
Amendment to The Religious Institution Classification Act The Religious Institution Classification Act is hereby amended to read: 1. Any church or religious institution that requires its members to pay fees shall henceforth be recognized as businesses by the Pacific Region. 2. Every other church or religious institution shall be tax exempt. These groups shall lose their tax exempt status should they: a. Donate money to a political campaign. b. Endorse anyone running for public office. c. Begin requiring members to pay fee's for any reason other than paying for damaged property. d. Their school programs do not follow the required curriculum set forth by The Pacific. X Jbrase Without further ado, Amendment to The Religious Institution Classification Act: AYE Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 09, 2010, 05:19:57 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on November 09, 2010, 07:39:53 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 09, 2010, 07:48:35 PM nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 10, 2010, 03:06:15 PM Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 11, 2010, 05:31:10 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 12, 2010, 06:32:21 PM Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 12, 2010, 07:49:02 PM The proposal leads me to question whether we are in the position to be providing such massive tax cuts to churches without considering the impact it would have on the budget. Where is the revenue to replace it going to come from?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 13, 2010, 03:05:46 AM The proposal leads me to question whether we are in the position to be providing such massive tax cuts to churches without considering the impact it would have on the budget. Where is the revenue to replace it going to come from? Looking back through Pacific statute I see plenty of bills passed that cost the region money while not providing a way to make up for it, yet you take issue when a bill stops taxing the money people donate to churches that would otherwise likely go to the churches funding non-profit programs to help those in need. Unless you are referring to Scientology or maybe a few mega churches it takes a very large misunderstanding of the word "business" to just label all churches as such. maybe the region could make up the lost revenue by no longer paying for elective abortions. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 13, 2010, 08:16:38 AM There are periodic tax increases and decreases according to the budget outlines provided by the GM so as to maintain close to a balanced budget, if nothing else, so there is some basis to assume that the spending authorized throughout Pacific law is not as outrageous as you may like. Given that the Pacific's unique tax structure places special emphasis on some items, such as religious institutions, that other regions do not, it allows us not to tax other items. I am just wondering if you think along the same lines, or if you would prefer to begin gutting programs, starting with those which you find most ideologically repugnant.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on November 13, 2010, 03:00:00 PM I'm introducing this bill. I honestly can't believe this crap is on the books.
Quote Repeal of the Public Funding of Abortion Act 1. The Public Funding in Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. X realisticidealist Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 13, 2010, 05:15:46 PM Pacific Freedom of Association Bill
1. No person shall be denied the right to discriminate against another person in employment or in the provision of public services, including accommodations, whether on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, or any other status outlined in statute or otherwise. 2. This law explicitly may not be interpreted to allow 'affirmative action' programs, which will remain illegal. Pacific Protection of the Public Safety Bill 1. All statute limiting the power of the government and law enforcement to apprehend those who have consumed or are in possession of cannabis, whether for recreational, medical, or any other purpose, shall be repealed. 2. Any person found to be in possession of any amount of cannabis shall be required to serve a minimum of six months in prison, with a sentence not to exceed one-hundred years. 3. Any person found to be selling, distributing, or cultivating cannabis shall be required to serve a minimum of five years in prison, with a sentence not to exceed death. We should also look at banning abortion, as a way of addressing the disparity between incarcerated men and women. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 13, 2010, 09:49:04 PM I'm introducing this bill. I honestly can't believe this crap is on the books. Quote Repeal of the Public Funding of Abortion Act 1. The Public Funding in Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. X realisticidealist X Jbrase Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 14, 2010, 05:21:05 AM What the hell are all these reactionary bills ? ???
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 14, 2010, 09:24:09 AM Ebowed FTW. ;D
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on November 14, 2010, 01:39:08 PM What the hell are all these reactionary bills ? ??? Ebowed's bills don't count as they aren't serious. Other than that, there have been all of two bills that you could possibly include under the banner of 'reactionary'; one is currently passing, plus there is the one I just proposed. As for the one I just introduced, in what world is it possibly a good idea to pay for every abortion by every woman in the Region with public money? Look, I know this is a liberal region, and I understand the reasons that it is very pro-choice, but I can't understand why we would want to be so in favor of abortion that we publicly fund it in all situations. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 14, 2010, 06:57:55 PM I'm introducing this bill. I honestly can't believe this crap is on the books. Quote Repeal of the Public Funding of Abortion Act 1. The Public Funding in Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. X realisticidealist Approved as constitutional if passed. Although I personally disapprove of it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 14, 2010, 07:37:42 PM Pacific Freedom of Association Bill 1. No person shall be denied the right to discriminate against another person in employment or in the provision of public services, including accommodations, whether on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, or any other status outlined in statute or otherwise. 2. This law explicitly may not be interpreted to allow 'affirmative action' programs, which will remain illegal. Pacific Protection of the Public Safety Bill 1. All statute limiting the power of the government and law enforcement to apprehend those who have consumed or are in possession of cannabis, whether for recreational, medical, or any other purpose, shall be repealed. 2. Any person found to be in possession of any amount of cannabis shall be required to serve a minimum of six months in prison, with a sentence not to exceed one-hundred years. 3. Any person found to be selling, distributing, or cultivating cannabis shall be required to serve a minimum of five years in prison, with a sentence not to exceed death. We should also look at banning abortion, as a way of addressing the disparity between incarcerated men and women. The Pacific Freedom of Association Bill has been ruled as unconstitutional, for it violates the government's right to "insure domestic tranquility"-(Constitution, Preamble). Allowing verbal abuse (discrimination) in a persons legal place of employment diminishes domestic tranquility, thus the bill cannot be passed. The Pacific Protection of Public Safety Bill has also been ruled unconstitutional, for the bill allows for a person to be jailed to up to 100 years because of marijuana possession. As Pacific Justice, I officially define this sentence as a form of "cruel and unusual punishments"-(Pacific Constitution, Aricle 3, Clause 8 ). The bill cannot be passed. lol Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 14, 2010, 09:46:29 PM I thank the Justice for his observations. In lieu of quadrupling the prison rolls, I will work on legislation to abolish socialized schools to help save this fair region some hard earned cash.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 15, 2010, 12:12:27 PM I'd like to draw your attention to the voting on the Intra-Regional Mobility (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128003.0) amendment. Please vote!
Personally, I'll be opposing this - it may be well-intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions - it'll clutter the registration thread, and the objections of two RGs past and present show my worries have some credibility, I think. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on November 15, 2010, 01:29:34 PM I'd like to draw your attention to the voting on the Intra-Regional Mobility (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128003.0) amendment. Please vote! Personally, I'll be opposing this - it may be well-intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions - it'll clutter the registration thread, and the objections of two RGs past and present show my worries have some credibility, I think. :) Firstly, Fritz did NOT object to it as R.G., as I clearly remember pointing out to you the last time around when you made this claim. That's why it easily got passed in July. Secondly, as I said, this amendment was ALREADY PASSED in July into the old constitution. and was in force for three months. Armageddon did not break out in the registration thread, so your objections are clearly unfounded. All this amendment does is restore a policy that was already on the books for three months but was accidentally left out of the new constitution. It has been endorsed by Purple State, Marokai Blue, Badger, and Kalwejt, none of whom have any personal reason to support anything I have proposed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 15, 2010, 06:24:49 PM I'd like to draw your attention to the voting on the Intra-Regional Mobility (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128003.0) amendment. Please vote! Personally, I'll be opposing this - it may be well-intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions - it'll clutter the registration thread, and the objections of two RGs past and present show my worries have some credibility, I think. :) Constitutional. It may be passed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 16, 2010, 09:31:29 AM I'd like to draw your attention to the voting on the Intra-Regional Mobility (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=128003.0) amendment. Please vote! Personally, I'll be opposing this - it may be well-intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions - it'll clutter the registration thread, and the objections of two RGs past and present show my worries have some credibility, I think. :) Firstly, Fritz did NOT object to it as R.G., as I clearly remember pointing out to you the last time around when you made this claim. That's why it easily got passed in July. Secondly, as I said, this amendment was ALREADY PASSED in July into the old constitution. and was in force for three months. Armageddon did not break out in the registration thread, so your objections are clearly unfounded. All this amendment does is restore a policy that was already on the books for three months but was accidentally left out of the new constitution. It has been endorsed by Purple State, Marokai Blue, Badger, and Kalwejt, none of whom have any personal reason to support anything I have proposed. FYI, I support it too. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 16, 2010, 10:27:49 AM We might as well write a new Constitution if this is going to keep up.:P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 16, 2010, 06:49:52 PM Do we have any budgetary reports on hand? Just wondering.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 16, 2010, 07:06:51 PM Do we have any budgetary reports on hand? Just wondering. Actually, if I remember correctly, we haven't had a budgetary report since Bgwah was governor (hell, it might've been even longer that that, we might've not had one ever since John Ford) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 16, 2010, 07:13:06 PM We might as well write a new Constitution if this is going to keep up.:P It would be fairly easy to just directly edit the amendments into the main Constitution page, rather than having a separate section for each amendment, if a cluttered/confusing Wiki page inspired your comment. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 17, 2010, 09:18:39 AM We might as well write a new Constitution if this is going to keep up.:P It would be fairly easy to just directly edit the amendments into the main Constitution page, rather than having a separate section for each amendment, if a cluttered/confusing Wiki page inspired your comment. What I meant was the sudden influx of these amendments and repeals. But that's actually a good idea, I'll look into that sometime. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 17, 2010, 09:48:06 AM Oops, sorry guys, internet access has been patchy at best for the last few days.
So, voting's closed on Jbrase's bill - And, unless my addition skills have really gone to hell, it's passed with a vote of 4 in favour, 3 opposed, and I'll now sign it into law. X Oakvale As for the We Miss You Act, the vote is an exact tie of 3 in favour, 3 opposed. Just to save us having to vote again or whatever, I'll just let you all know that I'd, sadly, have vetoed this if it had passed. ;) Fun times in the Pacific, incidentally - the Lieutenant Gov. and I have been working on yet more annoying Constitutional stuff which I/we will be rolling out shortly. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 17, 2010, 11:05:51 AM Fun times in the Pacific, incidentally - the Lieutenant Gov. and I have been working on yet more annoying Constitutional stuff which I/we will be rolling out shortly. :P Shh. Don't spoil the surprise.;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 20, 2010, 12:06:12 AM As I searched though the archives of stature passed I found nothing concerning the ownership of weapons, which is why I wrote this bill to propose to the Legislate.
Sorry if it sounds a bit choppy, but it's better than nothing. Quote Ban of Automatic Weapons Act Clauses: 1.) Any guns which can fire lethal projectiles while having an automatic firing option are hereby banned for use of civilians in the Pacific Region. Teflon coated bullets are also banned from civilian use within the Pacific Region. 2.) Any person(s) in possession of a weapon(s) similar to that stated in clause must turn them in to the authorities in exchange for a subsidy. 3.) The Subsidy as stated in Clause 2 must match the same price for which the weapon(s) were previously purchased, by the previous owner. They must provide the weapons, proof of purchase(s) plus the proper permit in order to receive a subsidy. 4.) Owners of deadly automatic weapons will have 2 weeks after the bill becomes law to turn in their weapon(s) for a subsidies. 5.) Clause six will become active 2 weeks after the bill is approved by the Pacific Legislature. 6.) a.) The possession of an assault weapon(s)/ the use of Teflon coated bullets are hereby seen as felonies punishable by law. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 20, 2010, 05:19:48 AM Ban of Automatic Weapons Act *signature* Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 20, 2010, 05:27:46 AM Ban of Automatic Weapons Act *signature* Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 20, 2010, 06:29:10 AM Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 20, 2010, 10:37:24 AM That was quick! :)
Okay, why not? Voting is now open on the Ban of Automatic Weapons Act, and will remain so for one week. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 20, 2010, 11:19:43 AM Nay
Quote from: 3rd Constitution The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 20, 2010, 11:23:38 AM Nay Quote from: 3rd Constitution The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed. It doesn't say what kind of firearms though. This is only banning automatic firearms, not handguns and hunting rifles. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 20, 2010, 11:24:13 AM Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 20, 2010, 11:32:48 AM Nay Quote from: 3rd Constitution The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed. It doesn't say what kind of firearms though. This is only banning automatic firearms, not handguns and hunting rifles. I personally dislike fire-arms myself, but people have a right to have them. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 20, 2010, 11:41:38 AM Ban of Automatic Weapons Act: Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 20, 2010, 01:12:30 PM Ban of Automatic Weapons Act: Nay Alright, well I'm of to get my gat and roll on some raggedy ass bustas. See you homies later. () Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 20, 2010, 05:07:35 PM Aye (I BELIEVE CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE.... Won't someone please think of the children? And their safety?)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 20, 2010, 05:43:48 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 20, 2010, 05:51:15 PM Ban of Automatic Weapons Act: Nay Alright, well I'm of to get my gat and roll on some raggedy ass bustas. See you homies later. () O hell yea son. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 20, 2010, 08:30:37 PM Nay Quote from: 3rd Constitution The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed. It doesn't say what kind of firearms though. This is only banning automatic firearms, not handguns and hunting rifles. I personally dislike fire-arms myself, but people have a right to have them. It doesn't say we can't regulate what kinds of firearms people are permitted to either. Plus, I don't think the founding fathers had Uzi's in mind when they wrote this. No disrespect. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 21, 2010, 09:08:16 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on November 22, 2010, 05:14:43 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 22, 2010, 07:25:46 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 22, 2010, 08:50:49 PM abstain
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 23, 2010, 12:30:50 AM Please take a look at our new proposition for an elected legislature:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=116254.msg2728194#msg2728194 All suggestions and critiques are very welcome! :) Oh, and Abstain. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 23, 2010, 04:02:39 AM I like the bill except for the term limits, for which I don't really see the point. Also, the way Councilors are elected isn't very clear.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 23, 2010, 09:26:22 AM I like the bill except for the term limits, for which I don't really see the point. Also, the way Councilors are elected isn't very clear. I thought about that myself after looking at our draft. Maybe we could have one seat up for election say, every two months and each seat would have a six month term (after our first election, maybe two seats can volunteer for shorter terms so we can get the ball rolling)? And use IRV for each election? I'm hoping we can get this passed before the end of the month so we can have elections in December along with Governor and Lt. Governor. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on November 23, 2010, 01:19:43 PM Ban of Automatic Weapons Act: Nay.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 24, 2010, 02:52:03 AM I like the bill except for the term limits, for which I don't really see the point. Also, the way Councilors are elected isn't very clear. I thought about that myself after looking at our draft. Maybe we could have one seat up for election say, every two months and each seat would have a six month term (after our first election, maybe two seats can volunteer for shorter terms so we can get the ball rolling)? And use IRV for each election? I'm hoping we can get this passed before the end of the month so we can have elections in December along with Governor and Lt. Governor. I like the idea of terms not being simultaneous (it will make the Council look like the US Senate :P). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 24, 2010, 03:19:07 AM I have always liked our legislature unelected and open to everyone in this region. I have no desire to see it turn boring, and the second this place turns elected is about the time I stop paying attention to our legislature entirely.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 24, 2010, 09:17:54 AM I have always liked our legislature unelected and open to everyone in this region. I have no desire to see it turn boring, and the second this place turns elected is about the time I stop paying attention to our legislature entirely. Only one House of the legislature will be elected. The other one will be comprised entirely of unelected Pacific Citizens. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 24, 2010, 11:55:10 AM I have always liked our legislature unelected and open to everyone in this region. I have no desire to see it turn boring, and the second this place turns elected is about the time I stop paying attention to our legislature entirely. Only one House of the legislature will be elected. The other one will be comprised entirely of unelected Pacific Citizens. Yeah, it's worth noting that we'll still have our current legislature, just with another chamber added. And hey, it's all strictly on a trial basis - if it doesn't work out too well we can always scrap it later, but I'm a firm believer in experimentation - I've never been a fan of the "if it ain't broke..." school of thought. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 27, 2010, 03:49:53 PM As I searched though the archives of stature passed I found nothing concerning the ownership of weapons, which is why I wrote this bill to propose to the Legislate. Sorry if it sounds a bit choppy, but it's better than nothing. Quote Ban of Automatic Weapons Act Clauses: 1.) Any guns which can fire lethal projectiles while having an automatic firing option are hereby banned for use of civilians in the Pacific Region. Teflon coated bullets are also banned from civilian use within the Pacific Region. 2.) Any person(s) in possession of a weapon(s) similar to that stated in clause must turn them in to the authorities in exchange for a subsidy. 3.) The Subsidy as stated in Clause 2 must match the same price for which the weapon(s) were previously purchased, by the previous owner. They must provide the weapons, proof of purchase(s) plus the proper permit in order to receive a subsidy. 4.) Owners of deadly automatic weapons will have 2 weeks after the bill becomes law to turn in their weapon(s) for a subsidies. 5.) Clause six will become active 2 weeks after the bill is approved by the Pacific Legislature. 6.) a.) The possession of an assault weapon(s)/ the use of Teflon coated bullets are hereby seen as felonies punishable by law. Constitutional, it may be passed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 27, 2010, 03:50:53 PM Please take a look at our new proposition for an elected legislature: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=116254.msg2728194#msg2728194 All suggestions and critiques are very welcome! :) Oh, and Abstain. Approved as constitutional. It may be passed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 27, 2010, 07:36:49 PM Ban of Automatic Weapons Act
4 Aye 3 Nay 2 (abstain) I veto. *runs and hides* Oh, and hopefully I can open voting on the aforementioned latest amendment next week. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 27, 2010, 07:45:13 PM Ban of Automatic Weapons Act 4 Aye 3 Nay 2 (abstain) I veto. *runs and hides* Oh, and hopefully I can open voting on the aforementioned latest amendment next week. No need to run and hide, you can defend yourself with automatic weapons. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 27, 2010, 08:31:43 PM Ban of Automatic Weapons Act 4 Aye 3 Nay 2 (abstain) I veto. *runs and hides* Oh, and hopefully I can open voting on the aforementioned latest amendment next week. No need to run and hide, you can defend yourself with automatic weapons. :) Not that I'm any great fan of gun ownership, but it doesn't achieve much to ban assault rifles, really. How many crimes are committed with an AK? :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on November 27, 2010, 08:35:13 PM Ban of Automatic Weapons Act I veto. Yay! Ban of Automatic Weapons Act 4 Aye 3 Nay 2 (abstain) I veto. *runs and hides* Oh, and hopefully I can open voting on the aforementioned latest amendment next week. No need to run and hide, you can defend yourself with automatic weapons. :) ^^^^ Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 27, 2010, 08:37:30 PM Ban of Automatic Weapons Act 4 Aye 3 Nay 2 (abstain) I veto. *runs and hides* Oh, and hopefully I can open voting on the aforementioned latest amendment next week. No need to run and hide, you can defend yourself with automatic weapons. :) Not that I'm any great fan of gun ownership, but it doesn't achieve much to ban assault rifles, really. How many crimes are committed with an AK? :P I don't know, want to find out? :P We could ask some people in Mexico City, maybe they will know. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 27, 2010, 09:47:14 PM I will be resigning from my post as Pacific Justice, effective immediately. I would rather just be a Regional Activist.
And I am not resigning to run for another office. :P It's been an honor, I guess. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 28, 2010, 04:23:21 AM I will be resigning from my post as Pacific Justice, effective immediately. I would rather just be a Regional Activist. And I am not resigning to run for another office. :P It's been an honor, I guess. We'll miss you. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 28, 2010, 01:26:44 PM I will be resigning from my post as Pacific Justice, effective immediately. I would rather just be a Regional Activist. And I am not resigning to run for another office. :P It's been an honor, I guess. You served well with your mighty gavel of justice. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 28, 2010, 02:21:03 PM I will be resigning from my post as Pacific Justice, effective immediately. I would rather just be a Regional Activist. And I am not resigning to run for another office. :P It's been an honor, I guess. This is unexpected, and deeply disappointing. :( Thank you for your genuinely distinguished service, and good luck. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 28, 2010, 09:18:56 PM I'm introducing this bill. I honestly can't believe this crap is on the books. Quote Repeal of the Public Funding of Abortion Act 1. The Public Funding in Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. X realisticidealist X Jbrase just thought I'd bump this. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 29, 2010, 01:10:34 AM My final draft of the Legislation bill, incorporating various ideas given by all of you, as well as one of my own:
Quote The Pacific General Assembly Amendment Whereas the Pacific Region has not had an organized legislature, this amendment hereby establishes The General Assembly, a bicarmeal legislative body known as the Pacific Council and Pacific Assembly. Regarding the Pacific Supreme Council: 1.) The Pacific Council will be in charge of drafting and approving legislation for ratification. All legislation must by approved by the council by a simple majority. 2.) It will be in charge of approving impeachment proceedings during specific circumstances. All impeachment hearings are to be approved unanimously by the members of the Council. 3.) The Council shall be composed of four members, to be elected via instant runoff voting. The three candidates that recieve the most votes will compose the council. All candidates must have at least 30 posts and have been living in the Pacific Region for at least 20 days. 4.) Each council member's term will last for four months. Every four months, two seats on the Council will be up for election. No council member can serve more than three terms consecutively. The term of each council member will begin and end the Friday following a Council election. The elections for the Council shall be held concurrently with either the Federal or Statewide elections in February, June, and October. 5.) If a Councilor is inactive for twenty days without prior notice of absence, the Councilor is considered absentionist and the Council may vote whether or not to vacate the seat. 6.) Should a vacancy occur the Governor shall nominate a replacement councilor. The councilor must be approved by the Pacific Assembly in order to assume office. The councilor will serve out their predeccesor's term until the next election, at which a special election will be held in order to determine who will serve out the remainder of the term. 7.) The Lt. Governor will act as the Leader of the Council. The duties of the Lt. Governor are now expanded to organizing and opening debate on proposed legislation within the Council, as well as supervising all Council activities. They are also to break any tie that occurs among the Councilors. Regarding the Pacific People's Assembly: 1.) The Pacific Assembly will be in charge of voting and ratifying all legislation. It will also be in charge of beginning impeachment proceedings. All impeachments proceedings must be approved by 2/3rds of the vote. All legislation may be ratified with a simple majority. 2.) The Pacific Assembly will be composed of the citizens of the Pacific Region. The Assembly will not have elections as every citizen is part of the assembly from the moment they become naturalized in the Pacific. 3.) Pacific Councilors are not considered part of the Assembly as they have already voted on legislation. Regarding Legislation: 1.) The Pacific Council will draft legislation for the region. It can also take bills proposed by citizens and approve the legislation for the Assembly to vote on. 2.) The Leader of the Council (Lt. Governor) will take drafted and proposed legislation and open debate and voting on all bills within the Council sessions. 3.) The Council must have a majority vote in order to allow legislation to move to the Assembly. 4.) The Assembly will vote to ratify all legislation that is proposed by the Council. A majority is required to ratify any legislation. 5.) The executive branch may veto legislation. However, the Assembly can override a veto with a 2/3rds vote. 6.) Should the Pacific Justice find any legislation passed unconstitutional, they must strike the law down with their banhammer of justice. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 29, 2010, 02:59:19 AM I would like to amend it from "Pacific Council" to "Pacific Supreme Council"
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 29, 2010, 10:39:13 AM I would like to amend it from "Pacific Council" to "Pacific Supreme Council" Only if you can come up with a cool name for the Assembly.;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 29, 2010, 11:12:45 AM The Pacific General Assembly Amendment : Aye
Repeal of the Public Funding of Abortion Act : Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 29, 2010, 12:29:48 PM A few things:
1. Six months is too long. I would suggest making them three-month terms and having elections every month. 2. Members of the Council should not be part of the Assembly. 3. The Lieutenant Governorship should be abolished with the creation of the Council, as it's not really a useful office anyway. 4. The initial election should be held by STV. The top finisher should serve a full term, the second-place finisher should serve a two-month term (or four months, if we use six-month terms), and the third-place finisher should have the shortest term. 5. If a replacement Councilor is appointed, he should only serve until the next election. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 29, 2010, 01:20:21 PM Guys, guys, voting's not open yet. Chill.
As for the Public Funding of Abortion Act, I'll add my signature. I don't agree with the bill, and won't be voting for it, but I believe it should be at least put to a vote. I'll open voting on both in a day or so. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 29, 2010, 01:57:48 PM A few things: 1. Six months is too long. I would suggest making them three-month terms and having elections every month. 2. Members of the Council should not be part of the Assembly. 3. The Lieutenant Governorship should be abolished with the creation of the Council, as it's not really a useful office anyway. 4. The initial election should be held by STV. The top finisher should serve a full term, the second-place finisher should serve a two-month term (or four months, if we use six-month terms), and the third-place finisher should have the shortest term. 5. If a replacement Councilor is appointed, he should only serve until the next election. I was wondering as to whether or not we should go with Jbrase's idea and put the whole Council up for a grabs (at-large style) every four months (concurrently with the Presidential elections). As for the abolishment of my position, I think it's still useful in some way (Acting as a surrogate and historian for the region). I agree with 2 and 5. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 29, 2010, 03:23:18 PM I like the idea of one-third-at-time elections. Maybe though it could be 3 months instead of 6 as Xahar suggested.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 29, 2010, 03:45:16 PM 3 months would result in elections during odd-months, which I would rather avoid.
I would like to amend it from "Pacific Council" to "Pacific Supreme Council" Only if you can come up with a cool name for the Assembly.;) How about the People's House, since we can all vote there? ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 29, 2010, 04:01:50 PM A few things: 1. Six months is too long. I would suggest making them three-month terms and having elections every month. 2. Members of the Council should not be part of the Assembly. 3. The Lieutenant Governorship should be abolished with the creation of the Council, as it's not really a useful office anyway. 4. The initial election should be held by STV. The top finisher should serve a full term, the second-place finisher should serve a two-month term (or four months, if we use six-month terms), and the third-place finisher should have the shortest term. 5. If a replacement Councilor is appointed, he should only serve until the next election. I was wondering as to whether or not we should go with Jbrase's idea and put the whole Council up for a grabs (at-large style) every four months (concurrently with the Presidential elections). As for the abolishment of my position, I think it's still useful in some way (Acting as a surrogate and historian for the region). I agree with 2 and 5. When you think about it, there's really no need to have an odd number of members. Perhaps four members serving four-month terms, elected two at a time? I think that the duties of the Lieutenant Governor would be better served folded into the position of President of the Legislative Council. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 29, 2010, 04:16:55 PM Since the assembly is still every citizen of the Pacific, does that mean that a Councilor could still vote in the assembly as well as in the Council?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 29, 2010, 06:49:38 PM Since the assembly is still every citizen of the Pacific, does that mean that a Councilor could still vote in the assembly as well as in the Council? I would say that since the Councilor has technically voted already, they won't vote as part of the People's Assembly (Thanks Bgwah :)) A few things: 1. Six months is too long. I would suggest making them three-month terms and having elections every month. 2. Members of the Council should not be part of the Assembly. 3. The Lieutenant Governorship should be abolished with the creation of the Council, as it's not really a useful office anyway. 4. The initial election should be held by STV. The top finisher should serve a full term, the second-place finisher should serve a two-month term (or four months, if we use six-month terms), and the third-place finisher should have the shortest term. 5. If a replacement Councilor is appointed, he should only serve until the next election. I was wondering as to whether or not we should go with Jbrase's idea and put the whole Council up for a grabs (at-large style) every four months (concurrently with the Presidential elections). As for the abolishment of my position, I think it's still useful in some way (Acting as a surrogate and historian for the region). I agree with 2 and 5. When you think about it, there's really no need to have an even number of members. Perhaps four members serving four-month terms, elected two at a time? I think that the duties of the Lieutenant Governor would be better served folded into the position of President of the Legislative Council. I like this idea. Maybe we can simply combine the Lieutenant Governor and the President of the Council positions so that the position is meaningful. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on November 30, 2010, 02:31:14 AM Quote The Cobain-Bieber Act of 2010 1. Effective immediately there shall be an additional 12% tax on; A. Admission to Justin Bieber concerts. B. Justin Bieber merchandise, including the buying of his "music" on itunes. 2. Justin Bieber is not the Kurt Cobain of his generation. 3. All music shops, and places that sell cd's shall be required to maintain a 20' distance between all Nirvana and Justin Bieber merchandise. 4. Money raised by this bill shall go to funding music programs in schools through out The Pacific. X Jbrase Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 30, 2010, 05:12:32 AM Quote The Cobain-Bieber Act of 2010 1. Effective immediately there shall be an additional 12% tax on; A. Admission to Justin Bieber concerts. B. Justin Bieber merchandise, including the buying of his "music" on itunes. 2. Justin Bieber is not the Kurt Cobain of his generation. 3. All music shops, and places that sell cd's shall be required to maintain a 20' distance between all Nirvana and Justin Bieber merchandise. 4. Money raised by this bill shall go to funding music programs in schools through out The Pacific. X Jbrase We, the Pacific Justice, officially deem the Cobain-Bieber bill as unconstitutional. The Constitution of the Pacific Region (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution) expressly States that "The Pacific Region shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person the equal protection of the laws, or pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law. " (III, 4). We consider that section 1 violates the bolded clause, at its provision singles out a specific person. The Pacific Consitution also states that "The Pacific Region shall not abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (III, 2). We consider that deciding whether or not Justin Bieber is the new Kurt Kobain is a freedom of speech that belongs to each individual. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 30, 2010, 02:57:29 PM Quote The Cobain-Bieber Act of 2010 1. Effective immediately there shall be an additional 12% tax on; A. Admission to Justin Bieber concerts. B. Justin Bieber merchandise, including the buying of his "music" on itunes. 2. Justin Bieber is not the Kurt Cobain of his generation. 3. All music shops, and places that sell cd's shall be required to maintain a 20' distance between all Nirvana and Justin Bieber merchandise. 4. Money raised by this bill shall go to funding music programs in schools through out The Pacific. X Jbrase We, the Pacific Justice, officially deem the Cobain-Bieber bill as unconstitutional. The Constitution of the Pacific Region (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution) expressly States that "The Pacific Region shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person the equal protection of the laws, or pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law. " (III, 4). We consider that section 1 violates the bolded clause, at its provision singles out a specific person. The Pacific Consitution also states that "The Pacific Region shall not abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (III, 2). We consider that deciding whether or not Justin Bieber is the new Kurt Kobain is a freedom of speech that belongs to each individual. Excellent call. Some advise to Jbrase, you could simply put a small sin tax on CD's instead or something. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on November 30, 2010, 03:48:10 PM I'm gonna open voting on a final version of the legislature thing, Antonio's nomination as Pacific Justice, and so on tomorrow. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 30, 2010, 11:31:34 PM I'm gonna open voting on a final version of the legislature thing, Antonio's nomination as Pacific Justice, and so on tomorrow. :) Wait until I revise the Legislature bill first.:P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 01, 2010, 01:31:21 PM I'm gonna open voting on a final version of the legislature thing, Antonio's nomination as Pacific Justice, and so on tomorrow. :) Wait until I revise the Legislature bill first.:P :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 01, 2010, 02:30:25 PM I'm gonna open voting on a final version of the legislature thing, Antonio's nomination as Pacific Justice, and so on tomorrow. :) Wait until I revise the Legislature bill first.:P Don't forget... SUPREME council. Got it? SUPREME. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 01, 2010, 05:53:59 PM I'm gonna open voting on a final version of the legislature thing, Antonio's nomination as Pacific Justice, and so on tomorrow. :) Wait until I revise the Legislature bill first.:P Don't forget... SUPREME council. Got it? SUPREME. :P I know, I know.;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on December 02, 2010, 01:23:40 PM Ok, I know this will fail/be found unconstitutional some how, but I gotta introduce it despite the fact I'll likely be the only vote.
Quote The We'll Miss You Act of 2010 1. Because of Libertas's great service on behalf of the people as an At-Large Senator, December 2 shall be a day of mourning for the region and all flags lowered to half-mast. 2. Churchill County Nevada is hereby renamed Libertas County and it Fallon Nevada shall hereby be re-named Ciudad de Libertad in his honor. X Jbrase Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 02, 2010, 02:11:57 PM Nah, your bill sucks epically, but is constitutional. ;)
Though I'd prefer this one : Quote Good riddance Act of 2010 1. December 2 shall hereby be a regional holiday known as Good riddance day, in honor of the banning of the infamous troll Libertas. 2. During this day, the Pacific region shall officially thank David Leip for taking this decision. X Antonio V Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on December 02, 2010, 03:00:59 PM Nah, your bill sucks epically, but is constitutional. ;) Though I'd prefer this one : Quote Good riddance Act of 2010 1. December 2 shall hereby be a regional holiday known as Good riddance day, in honor of the banning of the infamous troll Libertas. 2. During this day, the Pacific region shall officially thank David Leip for taking this decision. X Antonio V Ok, If my bill that would have made the day Hamilton was banned a regional holiday and day celebration, "Aaron Burr Day", then I'm gonna question the constitutionality of this :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 02, 2010, 04:19:50 PM Nah, your bill sucks epically, but is constitutional. ;) Though I'd prefer this one : Quote Good riddance Act of 2010 1. December 2 shall hereby be a regional holiday known as Good riddance day, in honor of the banning of the infamous troll Libertas. 2. During this day, the Pacific region shall officially thank David Leip for taking this decision. X Antonio V Ok, If my bill that would have made the day Hamilton was banned a regional holiday and day celebration, "Aaron Burr Day", then I'm gonna question the constitutionality of this :P Well, I'm not Fuzzybigfoot ;) and in this case I hold different constitutional standards. More specifically, I don't consider the "general welfare" mention in the preamble in a so restrictive way. Otherwise, your bill would be equally unconstitutional as mine. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 05, 2010, 02:23:35 AM My final draft of the Legislation bill, incorporating various ideas given by all of you, as well as one of my own:
Quote The Pacific General Assembly Amendment Whereas the Pacific Region has not had an organized legislature, this amendment hereby establishes The General Assembly, a bicarmeal legislative body known as the Pacific Council and Pacific Assembly. Regarding the Pacific Supreme Council: 1.) The Pacific Council will be in charge of drafting and approving legislation for ratification. All legislation must by approved by the council by a simple majority. 2.) It will be in charge of approving impeachment proceedings during specific circumstances. All impeachment hearings are to be approved unanimously by the members of the Council. 3.) The Council shall be composed of four members, to be elected via instant runoff voting. The three candidates that recieve the most votes will compose the council. All candidates must have at least 30 posts and have been living in the Pacific Region for at least 20 days. 4.) Each council member's term will last for four months. Every two months, two seats on the Council will be up for election. No council member can serve more than three terms consecutively. The term of each council member will begin and end the Friday following a Council election. The elections for the Council shall be held concurrently with either the Federal or Statewide elections in February, April, June, August, October, and December. 5.) If a Councilor is inactive for twenty days without prior notice of absence, the Councilor is considered absentionist and the Council may vote whether or not to vacate the seat. 6.) Should a vacancy occur the Governor shall nominate a replacement councilor. The councilor must be approved by the Pacific Assembly in order to assume office. The councilor will serve out their predeccesor's term until the next election, at which a special election will be held in order to determine who will serve out the remainder of the term. 7.) The Lt. Governor will act as the Leader of the Council. The duties of the Lt. Governor are now expanded to organizing and opening debate on proposed legislation within the Council, as well as supervising all Council activities. They are also to break any tie that occurs among the Councilors. Regarding the Pacific People's Assembly: 1.) The Pacific Assembly will be in charge of voting and ratifying all legislation. It will also be in charge of beginning impeachment proceedings. All impeachments proceedings must be approved by 2/3rds of the vote. All legislation may be ratified with a simple majority. 2.) The Pacific Assembly will be composed of the citizens of the Pacific Region. The Assembly will not have elections as every citizen is part of the assembly from the moment they become naturalized in the Pacific. 3.) Pacific Councilors are not considered part of the Assembly as they have already voted on legislation. Regarding Legislation: 1.) The Pacific Council will draft legislation for the region. It can also take bills proposed by citizens and approve the legislation for the Assembly to vote on. 2.) The Leader of the Council (Lt. Governor) will take drafted and proposed legislation and open debate and voting on all bills within the Council sessions. 3.) The Council must have a majority vote in order to allow legislation to move to the Assembly. 4.) The Assembly will vote to ratify all legislation that is proposed by the Council. A majority is required to ratify any legislation. 5.) The executive branch may veto legislation. However, the Assembly can override a veto with a 2/3rds vote. 6.) Should the Pacific Justice find any legislation passed unconstitutional, they must strike the law down with their banhammer of justice. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 05, 2010, 04:28:40 AM A Constitutional Amendment is by definition constitutional. I haven't any work there. :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 06, 2010, 01:44:14 PM Okay, here goes.
Voting is now open on the Pacific General Assembly Amendment, and will remain so for one week. I also realised I, uh, never actually formally nominated Antonio. So, okay, I hereby nominate Antonio V to the Pacific Court. Is it okay with you guys if I just leave the vote on Antonio open for, say, two or three days? Reason being I want to get the position filled as quickly as possible, I doubt there'll be much objection to the nominee, and plus he might end up winning election to the Senate anyway. :P So, anyway, I'll open voting to confirm Antonio and if there's any objection I'll extend the voting period. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 06, 2010, 02:09:32 PM So that means all my previous rulings had no value ? :P Not that it's a big problem, but I'll have to re-state constitutionality of each bill. ;)
Anyways, Aye (and thanks again to Oakvale). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 06, 2010, 03:37:23 PM So that means all my previous rulings had no value ? :P Not that it's a big problem, but I'll have to re-state constitutionality of each bill. ;) Anyways, Aye (and thanks again to Oakvale). Nah, I'm sure people will simply take them as a statement of intent on how you would have ruled. :P Anyway, The Pacific General Assembly Amendment: AYE Antonio V for Pacific Justice: AYE Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 06, 2010, 03:40:10 PM The Pacific General Assembly Amendment: AYE Antonio V for Pacific Justice: AYE Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 06, 2010, 03:45:28 PM aye
aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on December 06, 2010, 05:13:59 PM The Pacific General Assembly Amendment: Aye.
Antonio V for Pacific Justice: Aye. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 06, 2010, 06:48:33 PM general assembly: No
antonio for justice: Yes Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 06, 2010, 08:22:20 PM Aye
Aye Aren't there two more bills that need to be voted on? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 07, 2010, 08:12:28 AM The Pacific General Assembly Amendment : Aye
Antonio V for Pacific Justice : Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on December 07, 2010, 01:34:30 PM The Pacific General Assembly Amendment : Aye
Antonio V for Pacific Justice : Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 08, 2010, 01:47:41 PM I'm going to go ahead and close voting to confirm Antonio as Pacific Justice. As I outlined earlier, I can't imagine there's much objection, and it's probably a good idea to get him on the bench ASAP, especially considering he could very well end up in the Senate in a couple of days anyway.
Feel free to sue if there's a problem. :P So, Antonio V is hereby confirmed as Pacific Justice. X Oakvale The Legislature amendment will remain open for the normal time. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 08, 2010, 02:14:02 PM Thank you again, Mr. Governor. ;)
To ensure their legality, I'll repeat my constitutionality statements : The Cobain-Bieber Act of 2010 : unconstitutional The We'll Miss You Act of 2010 : constitutional Good riddance Act of 2010 : constitutional Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 08, 2010, 07:13:14 PM The Pacific General Assembly Amendment: Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 09, 2010, 02:51:16 AM Forgive the intrusion, Pacific Legislature members, but I'd really like to hear from Governor Oakvale on the Federal Stimulus for your regional needs in my office.
Biggest Need Least Concern Amount (You can estimate) I need it by tomorrow\tonight Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 09, 2010, 03:21:10 AM Forgive the intrusion, Pacific Legislature members, but I'd really like to hear from Governor Oakvale on the Federal Stimulus for your regional needs in my office. Biggest Need Least Concern Amount (You can estimate) I need it by tomorrow\tonight Woah, sorry. With all the chaos about the UDL, the legislature bill, etc, it completely slipped my mind. Apologies. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 09, 2010, 03:48:43 PM Forgive the intrusion, Pacific Legislature members, but I'd really like to hear from Governor Oakvale on the Federal Stimulus for your regional needs in my office. Biggest Need Least Concern Amount (You can estimate) I need it by tomorrow\tonight Woah, sorry. With all the chaos about the UDL, the legislature bill, etc, it completely slipped my mind. Apologies. Yay! Earmarks!!!!! :D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 09, 2010, 03:52:15 PM Forgive the intrusion, Pacific Legislature members, but I'd really like to hear from Governor Oakvale on the Federal Stimulus for your regional needs in my office. Biggest Need Least Concern Amount (You can estimate) I need it by tomorrow\tonight Woah, sorry. With all the chaos about the UDL, the legislature bill, etc, it completely slipped my mind. Apologies. Yay! Earmarks!!!!! :D $50,000,000 for a bgwah theme park. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 09, 2010, 04:35:32 PM Forgive the intrusion, Pacific Legislature members, but I'd really like to hear from Governor Oakvale on the Federal Stimulus for your regional needs in my office. Biggest Need Least Concern Amount (You can estimate) I need it by tomorrow\tonight Woah, sorry. With all the chaos about the UDL, the legislature bill, etc, it completely slipped my mind. Apologies. Yay! Earmarks!!!!! :D $50,000,000 for a bgwah theme park. ??? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 09, 2010, 04:45:48 PM Forgive the intrusion, Pacific Legislature members, but I'd really like to hear from Governor Oakvale on the Federal Stimulus for your regional needs in my office. Biggest Need Least Concern Amount (You can estimate) I need it by tomorrow\tonight Woah, sorry. With all the chaos about the UDL, the legislature bill, etc, it completely slipped my mind. Apologies. Yay! Earmarks!!!!! :D $50,000,000 for a bgwah theme park. ??? ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 09, 2010, 04:55:19 PM Quote from: Secretary of Internal Affairs Doctor Cynic link=topic=28197.msgu2748398#msg2748398 date=1291881076 Forgive the intrusion, Pacific Legislature members, but I'd really like to hear from Governor Oakvale on the Federal Stimulus for your regional needs in my office. Biggest Need Least Concern Amount (You can estimate) I need it by tomorrow\tonight Woah, sorry. With all the chaos about the UDL, the legislature bill, etc, it completely slipped my mind. Apologies. Yay! Earmarks!!!!! :D $50,000,000 for a bgwah theme park. ??? ;D Could we have some to upgrade the ferries in Puget Sound? Or money to build solar power plants? :D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on December 11, 2010, 06:27:15 AM If the vote is still open, I vote NAY on the Regional Legislature thing. Even if that won't anything.
I also want money to lower the very high unenployment in Nevada! We need the stimulus! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on December 11, 2010, 02:16:11 PM I also want money to lower the very high unenployment in Nevada! We need the stimulus! In the words of a rapper/comedian playing the role of F.A. Hayek. Quote You must save to invest, don't use the printing press, or a bust will surely follow, an economy depressed. You're so called "stimulus" will make things worse, just more of the same, more incentives perversed. And that credit crunch ain't a liquidity trap, just a broke banking system, I'm done that's a rap. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 11, 2010, 05:20:21 PM I get mad each time I hear the name of this damned Friedrich August Von Hack. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on December 11, 2010, 08:16:33 PM I get mad each time I hear the name of this damned Friedrich August Von Hack. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on December 12, 2010, 12:39:51 AM Quote Pro Choice Act of 2010 XJbrase1. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a condition for employment in employee contracts within the Pacific Region. 2. To avoid people complaining about "free riders" from section 1, any benefits workers achieved through collective bargaining shall only go to union members unless the union members of that particular industry/place of employment say otherwise. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 12, 2010, 06:02:21 AM I offer an Amendment :
Quote Pro Choice Act of 2010 1. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a condition for employment in employee contracts within the Pacific Region. 2. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a reason for being denied employment or being fired. Any business found guilty of breaking this provision shall pay to the victim indemnities equivalent of 12 months of his salary. 3. To avoid people complaining about "free riders" from section 1, any benefits workers achieved through collective bargaining shall only go to union members unless the union members of that particular industry/place of employment say otherwise. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on December 12, 2010, 12:29:55 PM I offer an Amendment : Quote Pro Choice Act of 2010 1. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a condition for employment in employee contracts within the Pacific Region. 2. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a reason for being denied employment or being fired. Any business found guilty of breaking this provision shall pay to the victim indemnities equivalent of 12 months of his salary. 3. To avoid people complaining about "free riders" from section 1, any benefits workers achieved through collective bargaining shall only go to union members unless the union members of that particular industry/place of employment say otherwise. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 12, 2010, 12:41:25 PM I offer an Amendment : Quote Pro Choice Act of 2010 1. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a condition for employment in employee contracts within the Pacific Region. 2. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a reason for being denied employment or being fired. Any business found guilty of breaking this provision shall pay to the victim indemnities equivalent of 12 months of his salary. 3. To avoid people complaining about "free riders" from section 1, any benefits workers achieved through collective bargaining shall only go to union members unless the union members of that particular industry/place of employment say otherwise. All right, fine then. ;) X Antonio V Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on December 12, 2010, 01:06:36 PM I offer an Amendment : Quote Pro Choice Act of 2010 1. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a condition for employment in employee contracts within the Pacific Region. 2. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a reason for being denied employment or being fired. Any business found guilty of breaking this provision shall pay to the victim indemnities equivalent of 12 months of his salary. 3. To avoid people complaining about "free riders" from section 1, any benefits workers achieved through collective bargaining shall only go to union members unless the union members of that particular industry/place of employment say otherwise. All right, fine then. ;) X Antonio V X Jbrase Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 12, 2010, 01:34:10 PM BTW, forgot to say, it's constitutional. :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on December 12, 2010, 01:44:45 PM I'll sign on to it as well.
Quote Pro Choice Act of 2010 1. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a condition for employment in employee contracts within the Pacific Region. 2. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a reason for being denied employment or being fired. Any business found guilty of breaking this provision shall pay to the victim indemnities equivalent of 12 months of his salary. 3. To avoid people complaining about "free riders" from section 1, any benefits workers achieved through collective bargaining shall only go to union members unless the union members of that particular industry/place of employment say otherwise. X realisticidealist Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 12, 2010, 07:50:39 PM I have no objection to this bill and will open it for voting as soon as the time expires on the legislature amendment. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on December 12, 2010, 08:04:06 PM I have no objection to this bill and will open it for voting as soon as the time expires on the legislature amendment. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 12, 2010, 10:15:14 PM That's awful, I think we can do without a right-to-work law.
"To avoid people complaining about free riders"? What? Does anyone else see a problem with allotting people a certain set of benefits and not the others? Let's not forget it is the government's place to step in and regulate if businesses are unwilling to treat their workers fairly and humanely of their own accord. This sort of legislation, I think, unnecessarily politicizes a process which should not really be so, that of joining a union. We do have the highest rate of union membership out of the regions and I don't see why we would want to decrease that? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 13, 2010, 02:58:51 PM That's awful, I think we can do without a right-to-work law. "To avoid people complaining about free riders"? What? Does anyone else see a problem with allotting people a certain set of benefits and not the others? Let's not forget it is the government's place to step in and regulate if businesses are unwilling to treat their workers fairly and humanely of their own accord. This sort of legislation, I think, unnecessarily politicizes a process which should not really be so, that of joining a union. We do have the highest rate of union membership out of the regions and I don't see why we would want to decrease that? I admit I was pretty indecise about the last section. I mostly agree with you Ebowed, but on the other hand I also think it could be a good way to extend union membership. Let's say that's worth a debate. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 16, 2010, 04:28:39 PM Legislature Amendment has passed! ;D
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 17, 2010, 08:50:30 AM Great ! :D
Do we have some candidates already ? :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 17, 2010, 12:22:56 PM Archangel was PMing people AFAIK, I'll ask any candidates to declare ASAP. :)
Anyway, for the formalities - The Pacific General Assembly Amendment passes with a vote of 7 in favour, and 3 opposed. X Oakvale. We've now got an upper house. It should be interesting to see how this plays out, if nothing else. Also, as an aside, I just swore in for my second term, so, uh, thanks for re-electing me, guys. Finally, voting on the Pro-Choice Act of 2010 is now open, and will remain so for one week. Quote Pro Choice Act of 2010 1. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a condition for employment in employee contracts within the Pacific Region. 2. Under no circumstances may joining and paying dues to a labor union be a reason for being denied employment or being fired. Any business found guilty of breaking this provision shall pay to the victim indemnities equivalent of 12 months of his salary. 3. To avoid people complaining about "free riders" from section 1, any benefits workers achieved through collective bargaining shall only go to union members unless the union members of that particular industry/place of employment say otherwise. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 18, 2010, 03:58:40 AM Pro Choice Act of 2010 - Nay.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 18, 2010, 05:08:04 AM Nay.
(I don't necessarily think we should require union membership for employment in any given sector, but I don't think we should outright prohibit it, either.) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 18, 2010, 05:32:06 AM Reluctant aye. After Ebowed's comments, I'd favor repealing section 3.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 18, 2010, 11:22:02 AM https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129592.0
Pacific Supreme Council Special election announcement and discussion thread.:) Nay on the bill. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on December 18, 2010, 12:55:36 PM Nay. (I don't necessarily think we should require union membership for employment in any given sector, but I don't think we should outright prohibit it, either.) Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on December 18, 2010, 12:57:40 PM And I wouldn't mind repealing the 3'd section of the bill, I added that part just in case someone would use "free-riders" as an argument against it.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 19, 2010, 02:11:51 AM And I wouldn't mind repealing the 3'd section of the bill, I added that part just in case someone would use "free-riders" as an argument against it. I will vote for it if you remove the third amendment. Although I approve and encourage workers to negotiate with employers (over wages, compensation, hours, etc.) I believe forcing someone to join a union violates their personal inalienable rights. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 19, 2010, 06:11:26 AM At this point, I think the best thing is to let the bill fail and then reintroduce it without section 3.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 20, 2010, 05:34:06 PM Is there any objection to having the Council elections in the new year?
I mean, if we really need to we can have them this month, but people are going to be busy with the holidays, and it probably makes more sense to wait until everyone's lives are a little less hectic. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 20, 2010, 06:08:15 PM Is there any objection to having the Council elections in the new year? I mean, if we really need to we can have them this month, but people are going to be busy with the holidays, and it probably makes more sense to wait until everyone's lives are a little less hectic. :) Well, first of all, we should wait until we have enough candidates to fill the 4 offices. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 21, 2010, 01:51:25 AM Is there any objection to having the Council elections in the new year? I mean, if we really need to we can have them this month, but people are going to be busy with the holidays, and it probably makes more sense to wait until everyone's lives are a little less hectic. :) Well, first of all, we should wait until we have enough candidates to fill the 4 offices. :P Well either way I guess it'll work. I just thought it'd be a better idea to pull the election this month in order to dodge a one month only term for two of the seats. Nevertheless, I have some doubt that we will be able to fill all four, even if we wait. Part of me says that there's too many of us in committed positions in order to keep seats occupied, not to mention the amount of inactive members from our region. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 21, 2010, 03:29:02 AM Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 21, 2010, 05:40:09 AM MaxQue ? Realisticidealist ?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 21, 2010, 01:04:35 PM MaxQue ? Realisticidealist ? If they wish to declare, they can. However, as I said, we still have two spots open (maybe just one depending on whether or not a specific person will go through with the consideration). We can't exactly force them to declare sadly, so the spots may remain unfilled until someone steps up. And also, with your Senate victory, we also have the Justice position to fill. That in of itself is a bit troublesome. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 21, 2010, 02:34:34 PM MaxQue ? Realisticidealist ? I've actually already asked someone, although I'm not going to tell you their name in public just yet. I'll nominate this person (if they still want to do it) once Antonio's in the Senate. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 21, 2010, 02:42:27 PM Well, we just need to pressure people a bit more. ;D
Seriousy though, if we don't get four (or even if we get only four) we should consider reducing the number of councilor to 3 or even 2. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 21, 2010, 04:41:39 PM Well, we just need to pressure people a bit more. ;D Seriousy though, if we don't get four (or even if we get only four) we should consider reducing the number of councilor to 3 or even 2. We'll see I guess. I'll just send a daily PM, maybe that'll work.:P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 21, 2010, 05:54:33 PM Xahar declared. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 21, 2010, 10:21:04 PM Xahar declared. :) That leaves one then...we'll see what happens. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: tmthforu94 on December 21, 2010, 10:33:36 PM Xahar declared. :) That leaves one then...we'll see what happens. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 26, 2010, 08:06:43 PM I think we should just get this over already. :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on December 26, 2010, 08:55:47 PM I think we should just get this over already. :P I'm going to hold the elections in the first week of the new year, if that works. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 26, 2010, 09:49:02 PM I think we should just get this over already. :P I'm going to hold the elections in the first week of the new year, if that works. I think we should do that, no matter how many candidates we have. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 26, 2010, 11:05:15 PM I think we should just get this over already. :P I'm going to hold the elections in the first week of the new year, if that works. Alright, that sounds good. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on January 02, 2011, 03:34:11 PM So I'm thinking the elections will be held Wednesday or so, if that suits.
We've only got 3 candidates, but, eh, we can always leave a seat vacant and amend it out later. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 04, 2011, 01:35:36 PM Now we really need an Amendment. 3 seats would be definitely better, we could even hope to get some competition.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on January 04, 2011, 06:35:46 PM Sorry, I've been busy with holidays and moving over the Eastern the last few weeks, so I've been very inactive. You guys seem to want a fifth candidate, so I might as well run for Council. I'll may only get two-ish votes, but hey, it's all for fun. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on January 05, 2011, 03:46:19 PM So when are we going to hold the election?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 05, 2011, 09:33:43 PM Wasn't the election going to be today?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on January 07, 2011, 06:27:03 PM Sorry guys, I've been kind of sick. :P
I'll open the election thread now, and leave it open for three days. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on January 07, 2011, 06:48:15 PM Happy voting! (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130340.0)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 07, 2011, 10:14:18 PM :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 07, 2011, 10:50:03 PM Do we have a "Get out the vote" campaign?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 08, 2011, 09:23:13 AM HOW COMES WE DON'T EVEN HAVE AN ELECTION TRACKER ?? Scandal !!! :o
I'll show you a precise and detailed tracker of this extremely close and hardly fought election. Voters : 8 Quota : 2 Count 1 Fuzzy : 4 ELECTED Realisticid : 2 ELECTED Jbrase : 1 Xahar : 1 Count 2 Fuzzy : 2 ELECTED (-2) Realisticid : 2 ELECTED Jbrase : 2 ELECTED (+1) Xahar : 2 ELECTED (+1) Fuzzybigfoot, Realisticidealist, Jbrase and Xahar are therefore elected to the Pacific council. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 08, 2011, 03:49:18 PM HOW COMES WE DON'T EVEN HAVE AN ELECTION TRACKER ?? Scandal !!! :o I'll show you a precise and detailed tracker of this extremely close and hardly fought election. Voters : 8 Quota : 2 Count 1 Fuzzy : 4 ELECTED Realisticid : 2 ELECTED Jbrase : 1 Xahar : 1 Count 2 Fuzzy : 2 ELECTED (-2) Realisticid : 2 ELECTED Jbrase : 2 ELECTED (+1) Xahar : 2 ELECTED (+1) Fuzzybigfoot, Realisticidealist, Jbrase and Xahar are therefore elected to the Pacific council. :D ;D hughughug :D :D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 08, 2011, 04:14:53 PM Thanks realisticidelist for putting me last behind Jbrase, who isn't close JCP or UDL in terms of ideology. :P Traitor.
(No offense, Jbrase) I just had to return the favor. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on January 08, 2011, 04:23:06 PM That wasn't at all meant as a slight, fuzzy. It was difficult for me to order my vote. I am the most conservative member of the UDL, and Jbrase and I have teamed up on a few things lately, which is why I put him second.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 08, 2011, 04:50:51 PM Yes, but still. I know you agreed with him on naying my weapons act, which is an opinion I respect, but I am still closer to you in terms of economic ideology.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 08, 2011, 06:21:55 PM Yes, but still. I know you agreed with him on naying my weapons act, which is an opinion I respect, but I am still closer to you in terms of economic ideology. That wasn't at all meant as a slight, fuzzy. It was difficult for me to order my vote. I am the most conservative member of the UDL, and Jbrase and I have teamed up on a few things lately, which is why I put him second. The obvious solution here is for you guys to go back and edit your votes to 1st pref'ing me ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 08, 2011, 06:26:54 PM The question of the hour is now who will get the one month terms and who will get the three month terms.:P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 08, 2011, 09:23:28 PM The question of the hour is now who will get the one month terms and who will get the three month terms.:P By this point it is clear fuzzy will get 1st place. He is a solid progressive AND does not have an entire faction in the left who hates him, which is helpful ;) . Then Second place will go to realisticidealist. He is not a far-left extremist but at the same time he is not Xahar or myself so..yeah. 3'rd and 4th is anyone's guess. Xahar has a personal feud with some of the Washingtonian posters and his past record at elections in the Pacific would cause some to believe his run is Quixotic, but there only being 4 seats will guarantee him one. Then I have a Econ score to the right of -10, nuff said. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 08, 2011, 10:30:50 PM The question of the hour is now who will get the one month terms and who will get the three month terms.:P By this point it is clear fuzzy will get 1st place. He is a solid progressive AND does not have an entire faction in the left who hates him, which is helpful ;) . Then Second place will go to realisticidealist. He is not a far-left extremist but at the same time he is not Xahar or myself so..yeah. 3'rd and 4th is anyone's guess. Xahar has a personal feud with some of the Washingtonian posters and his past record at elections in the Pacific would cause some to believe his run is Quixotic, but there only being 4 seats will guarantee him one. Then I have a Econ score to the right of -10, nuff said. We still have some people left to vote. ;) It isn't over yet. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 13, 2011, 01:08:22 AM *cough*Pacific Supreme Council Thread:(https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130612.0)*cough*
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 18, 2011, 09:47:55 PM To submit for approval to the People's Assembly:
Quote Rules for: Legislation and Debate processes in the Pacific Supreme Council Written by Archangel and Mr. Fuzzleton Section: 1.) Any bill that is proposed to the Pacific Supreme Council will not be debated on for longer than 3 days. 2.) Any Pacific Councilor may introduce a bill to the Council Body 3.) Any bill which faces a tie vote in the Council Body will be sent to the Lt. Governor, who will decide the bill's fate. 4.) Any bill which is passed by the the Council Body will be sent to the Pacific Citizens for confirmation, and if passed by the citizens it is sent to the governor to sign or veto/silent veto. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2011, 06:36:35 AM Do we need to vote on this ? ??? It seems to be the Pacific Council's own business and isn't a law properly speaking.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 19, 2011, 06:05:25 PM Do we need to vote on this ? ??? It seems to be the Pacific Council's own business and isn't a law properly speaking. Not technically speaking no, but the Assembly still has to ratify it I think due to the fact that this reinforces how bills will be going through both houses. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 20, 2011, 06:33:44 AM Do we need to vote on this ? ??? It seems to be the Pacific Council's own business and isn't a law properly speaking. Not technically speaking no, but the Assembly still has to ratify it I think due to the fact that this reinforces how bills will be going through both houses. Well, I think the Constitution is clear about this anyways, this mostly clear up the procedure. Anyways, Aye. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on January 20, 2011, 07:45:58 AM Would there be any objection to me engaging in a little constitutional trickery and closing voting as soon as possible so as to effectively rubber stamp the rules? ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 20, 2011, 12:35:51 PM Would there be any objection to me engaging in a little constitutional trickery and closing voting as soon as possible so as to effectively rubber stamp the rules? ;) Well, since there is not even a Justice to stop you... ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on January 20, 2011, 04:41:27 PM Indeed, I'm scouting candidates. ;)
Voting is now closed on the Rules for: Legislation and Debate processes in the Pacific Supreme Council. The bill passed with one vote in favour and zero opposed, and I'll now sign it into law. X Oakvale Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 20, 2011, 04:55:45 PM Don't we even have some quorum ? It looks so... crazy to see something passing with one vote... :P ;D :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 23, 2011, 04:24:40 PM The Pacific Citizens council will now decide the following bill, which was passed by the Council.
Quote Taxation of Drugs and Alcoholic Beverages Act Sections: 1.) On top of existing taxes in the Pacific Region, an additional sin tax of 7% will be placed on the sale of cannabis, LSD, alkyl nitrites, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and drugs legalized by the Drug War Phase-Out Act. 2.) Half of the revenue gained from this tax will be used to fund the training of doctors, nurses, and paramedics through regional college grants and fire departments. The other half will go to hospital maintenance in districts where the median family income is under $40,000. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 23, 2011, 05:17:43 PM Nay. I'm generally opposed to the idea of "sin" taxes. Why should it be any different than the standard sales tax, anyway? A tax associated with the increased health care costs of using said substances might make more sense.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on January 23, 2011, 05:23:37 PM Does it really matter what it is called?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 23, 2011, 05:26:48 PM Does it really matter what it is called? Why should the Pacific be labeling certain acts sins? We are a secular government. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on January 23, 2011, 05:32:48 PM Does it really matter what it is called? Why should the Pacific be labeling certain acts sins? We are a secular government. It's pretty commonly accepted that that is the name for this type of tax. You can call it a sumptuary tax or a Pignovian tax or just a sales tax if you want; it doesn't change what it is. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 24, 2011, 08:41:46 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 26, 2011, 03:20:54 AM Nay, one of the things that sets the Pacific apart from other regions is its longstanding objection to regressive consumption taxes, including those designed to stimulate social engineering.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 26, 2011, 06:02:59 AM Random question : can the councilors vote there too ? Since the assembly is made of every citizen, it also comprises them.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 26, 2011, 06:57:54 PM Nay, one of the things that sets the Pacific apart from other regions is its longstanding objection to regressive consumption taxes, including those designed to stimulate social engineering. Dude, it taxes DRUGS. DRUGS. It's not like we're taxing food for needy people. If you dislike the term "sin tax" why don't you just amend the bill and send it back to us? I seriously don't care what it's named. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on January 27, 2011, 12:04:29 AM Random question : can the councilors vote there too ? Since the assembly is made of every citizen, it also comprises them. No, we can't. Everyone only gets up to one vote on a bill, either in the Council or the Assembly. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 27, 2011, 12:41:38 AM Nay, one of the things that sets the Pacific apart from other regions is its longstanding objection to regressive consumption taxes, including those designed to stimulate social engineering. Dude, it taxes DRUGS. DRUGS. It's not like we're taxing food for needy people. If you dislike the term "sin tax" why don't you just amend the bill and send it back to us? I seriously don't care what it's named. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 27, 2011, 01:22:50 AM Not to spoil the great debate going on, but the Council has now passed three bills awaiting approval by the People's Assembly:
Quote Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Section 1. Section 4 of the Public Funding of Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. Section 2. Any doctor or other individual who carries out an intact dilation and extraction (also known as partial-birth abortion) procedure shall be subject to up to five years in prison and an indefinite suspension of their medical license, except if the continuation of the pregnancy presents an immediate, direct, and grave threat to the life of the mother, and no other medical options are available. Quote Amendment to the Public Funding of Abortion Act Section 1. Section 1 of the Public Funding of Abortion Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Public_Funding_in_Abortion_Act) is hereby repealed. Section 2. The Pacific Abortion Fund Office is hereby abolished. Quote Taxation of Prostitution Act Section 1. On top of all existing taxes in the Pacific Region, an additional 7% sin tax will be placed upon all transactions in which money is paid for an act of sex. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 27, 2011, 04:46:31 AM Nay, one of the things that sets the Pacific apart from other regions is its longstanding objection to regressive consumption taxes, including those designed to stimulate social engineering. Dude, it taxes DRUGS. DRUGS. It's not like we're taxing food for needy people. Surely, you would acknowledge that such a tax will disproportionately affect the poor in relation to their income and savings. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 27, 2011, 04:51:51 AM You see the problem is that it isn't taxing the Bourgeoisie pigs enough, and it needs to include a provision that the region will not only cover the cost of elective abortions, but we pay people extra to get them. then and only then can we call it a nice progressive bill that it fit for the region The fact that you somehow see abortion as connected to anything else is a testament to the extremities attracted by the questionable introduction of a two-tiered legislature in the Pacific. Perhaps your logically disturbing arguments and crass baiting go over well with the members of your council, but they will receive further scrutiny here. The need for you to mischaracterize our views also demonstrates a lack of intellectual honesty which speaks for itself. I am not here to rubber stamp your council's thoughtless tax increases and silly abortion regulations (banning partial-birth abortion? I'm sorry, you may as well ban flag burning while you're at it). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 27, 2011, 05:05:58 AM nay
nay nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 27, 2011, 05:09:29 AM Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: Nay.
Amendment to the Public Funding of Abortion Act: Nay. Taxation of Prostitution Act: Nay. Is there some sort of epidemic of intact D&X that warrants this prohibition, or is this just pointless gesturing that doesn't actually do anything to cut down on the number of abortions performed? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 27, 2011, 07:15:03 AM Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: Nay
Amendment to the Public Funding of Abortion Act: Nay Taxation of Prostitution Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on January 27, 2011, 03:07:58 PM banning partial-birth abortion? I'm sorry, you may as well ban flag burning while you're at it. Unlike flag burning, partial-birth abortion is an extremely violent, disgusting, and destructive procedure that involved literally decapitating a child as it is being born and vacuuming out the remains. Not only that, but it is specifically protected by Pacific Statute in section four of the Public Funding of Abortion Act. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 27, 2011, 03:35:49 PM Unlike flag burning, partial-birth abortion is an extremely violent, disgusting, and destructive procedure that involved literally decapitating a child as it is being born and vacuuming out the remains. Intact D&X is not performed as the child is being born, but rather involves inducing labor following the death of the fetus. The alternative that late into the pregnancy is usually destroying the fetus in utero and then removing the parts individually, which can be riskier depending on the exact circumstances of the pregnancy. Any conversation we are going to have about any kind of abortion performed in the late second and third trimesters will involve 'violent' and 'disgusting' connotations, and I am convinced that legislation of this nature is an overreaction to a procedure that is uncommon and generally only used when medically necessary. You've left in a provision allowing this procedure if the continuation of the pregnancy constitutes a 'grave' threat to the life of the mother (hardly a parameter with any leeway), and I would be more comfortable with doctors being able to determine that they will not be dealing with serious legal problems for performing one type of abortion over another when the outcome is identical. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on January 27, 2011, 06:21:10 PM Unlike flag burning, partial-birth abortion is an extremely violent, disgusting, and destructive procedure that involved literally decapitating a child as it is being born and vacuuming out the remains. Intact D&X is not performed as the child is being born, but rather involves inducing labor following the death of the fetus. The alternative that late into the pregnancy is usually destroying the fetus in utero and then removing the parts individually, which can be riskier depending on the exact circumstances of the pregnancy. Any conversation we are going to have about any kind of abortion performed in the late second and third trimesters will involve 'violent' and 'disgusting' connotations, and I am convinced that legislation of this nature is an overreaction to a procedure that is uncommon and generally only used when medically necessary. You've left in a provision allowing this procedure if the continuation of the pregnancy constitutes a 'grave' threat to the life of the mother (hardly a parameter with any leeway), and I would be more comfortable with doctors being able to determine that they will not be dealing with serious legal problems for performing one type of abortion over another when the outcome is identical. Being born was probably a bad way of putting it, but I suppose that's irrelevant. There is some variation on the methods used, however. Obviously, not much will change on this issue. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 27, 2011, 09:34:44 PM You see the problem is that it isn't taxing the Bourgeoisie pigs enough, and it needs to include a provision that the region will not only cover the cost of elective abortions, but we pay people extra to get them. then and only then can we call it a nice progressive bill that it fit for the region The fact that you somehow see abortion as connected to anything else is a testament to the extremities attracted by the questionable introduction of a two-tiered legislature in the Pacific. Perhaps your logically disturbing arguments and crass baiting go over well with the members of your council, but they will receive further scrutiny here. The need for you to mischaracterize our views also demonstrates a lack of intellectual honesty which speaks for itself. I am not here to rubber stamp your council's thoughtless tax increases and silly abortion regulations (banning partial-birth abortion? I'm sorry, you may as well ban flag burning while you're at it). Yes, how horrible, people will die off in droves now because of our tax on harmful drugs which they don't have to buy. And the worst part, the money which is collected (from the poor, middle class and rich alike) goes to underfunded hospitals in low income areas and public college grants for aspiring medical practitioners. We are such bastards. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 27, 2011, 10:08:33 PM Does it really matter what it is called? Why should the Pacific be labeling certain acts sins? We are a secular government. Oh yes, just like the Jesus Christ Party!!!! :D :D :D Maybe the name of the bill was meant to be silly too. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 27, 2011, 11:34:02 PM If I don't like Coldplay, does that mean I should try to tax the sale of Coldplay albums and concert tickets, and then devote the revenues to music programs at schools? :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 27, 2011, 11:57:51 PM If I don't like Coldplay, does that mean I should try to tax the sale of Coldplay albums and concert tickets, and then devote the revenues to music programs at schools? :P Is Coldplay a primary cause of illusions and lung conditions? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 28, 2011, 12:09:39 AM If I don't like Coldplay, does that mean I should try to tax the sale of Coldplay albums and concert tickets, and then devote the revenues to music programs at schools? :P Is Coldplay a primary cause of illusions and lung conditions? I believe it is a cause of a brain damage :P But more seriously, this is similar to what I mentioned earlier--I think I could support a tax that goes towards funding the associated health care costs with drug use, etc. But if it just goes to the hospitals in general, I don't really think that's fair. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on January 28, 2011, 01:00:07 AM If I don't like Coldplay, does that mean I should try to tax the sale of Coldplay albums and concert tickets, and then devote the revenues to music programs at schools? :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on January 28, 2011, 08:17:53 AM If I don't like Coldplay, does that mean I should try to tax the sale of Coldplay albums and concert tickets, and then devote the revenues to music programs at schools? :P The answer is, of course, yes. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 28, 2011, 08:48:17 PM If I don't like Coldplay, does that mean I should try to tax the sale of Coldplay albums and concert tickets, and then devote the revenues to music programs at schools? :P The answer is, of course, yes. :P Hmm... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 30, 2011, 10:24:59 PM If I don't like Coldplay, does that mean I should try to tax the sale of Coldplay albums and concert tickets, and then devote the revenues to music programs at schools? :P Is Coldplay a primary cause of illusions and lung conditions? I believe it is a cause of a brain damage :P But more seriously, this is similar to what I mentioned earlier--I think I could support a tax that goes towards funding the associated health care costs with drug use, etc. But if it just goes to the hospitals in general, I don't really think that's fair. Well many hospitals already have high costs due to being understaffed or under equipped, this bill would be aimed at fixing both those problems. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 14, 2011, 02:28:55 AM New legislation from the Council awaiting the approval of the Assembly:
Quote Re-Naming Act 1. For the purposes of saving money, but mainly not being douche bags to the people who actually live in the area's affected, the names of counties and cities located withing The Pacific Region can only be changed by the popular vote of the citizens who reside in them. 2. Becuase it is not the role of Government to purposely harass a group of people, The Sodom and Gomorrah Act is herby repealed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on February 14, 2011, 02:37:48 AM Nay
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 14, 2011, 02:38:35 AM Nay!
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 14, 2011, 09:34:03 AM What champions of democracy and tolerance....
Voting against letting the people decide the names of their own communities and harassing the communities of those you especially hate. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 14, 2011, 02:51:05 PM Yes, I hate those who abuse children. You got me!
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on February 14, 2011, 04:32:49 PM Yes, I hate those who abuse children. You got me! Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 14, 2011, 11:47:22 PM Wait, I'm an elected official and I can't vote here. How can you? Are only local officials not allowed to vote? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on February 15, 2011, 01:02:44 AM Wait, I'm an elected official and I can't vote here. How can you? Are only local officials not allowed to vote? I think it's because we're Council members and we've already had a vote on the legislation, whereas Bgwah hasn't had any say yet. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 15, 2011, 12:26:57 PM I think one of us should resign just so we can vote on the Citizen's Council and be more likely to get something passed. Personally, I would do it if I hadn't already resigned from public office once already...
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on February 15, 2011, 12:29:25 PM I suspect my anti-fracking bill, at least, would get through the legislature if it gets through the Council.
Furthermore, I don't think your one vote would be enough, Fuzzy. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 15, 2011, 12:33:58 PM I suspect my anti-fracking bill, at least, would get through the legislature if it gets through the Council. Furthermore, I don't think your one vote would be enough, Fuzzy. :P Well they are only 2 in opposition to everything we do, and Antonio might be willing to work/compromise with us. Who knows? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on February 16, 2011, 12:59:48 AM I suspect my anti-fracking bill, at least, would get through the legislature if it gets through the Council. Yes, and I hope to vote in favor of the automobile phase-out as well Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 16, 2011, 04:22:57 AM I persist thinking it is pure silliness that councilors aren't allowed to vote in the Legislature too. We currently have the worst possible legislative system.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on February 16, 2011, 12:11:10 PM I persist thinking it is pure silliness that councilors aren't allowed to vote in the Legislature too. We currently have the worst possible legislative system. I don't see why - they've already voted on the legislation, after all. Regarding the Council, what are all your thoughts on reducing the number of seats from four to three? We might even have a competitive election. :P e: Just to clarify re: Councillors voting in the general legislature - I'm always open to public opinion, so if a majority of you do think it should be allowed I'm more than willing to implement it ASAP. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 18, 2011, 11:47:18 PM New legislation:
Quote Another Fracking Ban Section 1. Effective immediately upon the passage of this act, the method of resource extraction known as hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') shall hereby be banned in the Pacific Region. Section 2. Persons found to be in violation of this act will be sentenced to a fine not to exceed $100 million as well as a minimum of five years imprisonment. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on February 20, 2011, 02:00:11 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 20, 2011, 02:00:37 AM aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 20, 2011, 06:46:13 AM Aye, I guess.
I persist thinking it is pure silliness that councilors aren't allowed to vote in the Legislature too. We currently have the worst possible legislative system. I don't see why - they've already voted on the legislation, after all. Regarding the Council, what are all your thoughts on reducing the number of seats from four to three? We might even have a competitive election. :P e: Just to clarify re: Councillors voting in the general legislature - I'm always open to public opinion, so if a majority of you do think it should be allowed I'm more than willing to implement it ASAP. :) Yeah, the only way to rationalize our system is to have less councilors (2 or 3, as you prefer), and allowing them to vote like other citizens. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on February 20, 2011, 11:28:08 AM aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on February 21, 2011, 03:57:07 PM Yay! One of my bills finally passed. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 24, 2011, 08:44:01 PM Yay! One of my bills finally passed. :) Well not until Oakvale certifies it. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on February 25, 2011, 10:14:10 AM Oh, right, yeah. Oops. Sorry I'm late.
The Another Fracking Ban bill has passed, and I'll now sign it into law. x Oakvale Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on February 27, 2011, 12:39:50 AM New legislation from the Council:
Quote The Ultimate Supply-Side Economics Act Section 1. Beginning January 1, 2015, the usage of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and all other petroleum-derived or -containing fuel shall hereby be banned for usage in all automobiles in the Pacific Region. a) Automobiles that possess historic importance, are necessary for interregional commerce, or are otherwise demonstrably vital and irreplaceable may be driven upon grant of permit from the Pacific Department of Licensing. i) An automobile that is necessary for interregional commerce must travel between regions for business purposes no fewer than five times a month, or possess no fewer than six normally operational wheels. ii) Each license shall cost no more than $50, adjustable to inflation no sooner than January 1, 2016. b) Any automobile found to be driven while consuming any of the aforementioned fuels without a permit after January 1, 2015 will be impounded and destroyed. i) Automobiles registered to other regions are exempt Section 1, provided that the owner is not a resident of the Pacific Region. Section 2. The Pacific Region will produce vouchers beginning January 1, 2013 and concluding June 1, 2015 worth half of the cost of an automobile that uses hydrogen, electricity, or another sustainable fuel source or the full cost of replacing the engine in their existing automobile with one that uses the aforementioned clean sources, whichever is cheaper, to be distributed to all holders of driver’s licenses in the Pacific Region with an annual household income below $200,000. These vouchers are to be paid by citizens to car manufacturers, who can redeem them for cash value from the Pacific Department of Energy. a) Each license holder may receive a maximum of one voucher. b) Receipts from voucher transactions for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles shall be redeemable for an additional voucher worth one-hundred dollars off a conventional- or solar-powered home hydrolysis station. c) No additional down payment shall be required for any automobile sold under this program that requires financing or any payment in installments. Section 3. Any company or firm based in the Pacific Region that can produce a production line- and sale-ready automobile that meets all current safety standards that uses hydrogen, electricity, or another sustainable fuel source without any usage of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or any other petroleum-derived or -containing fuel source that achieves no less than an equivalent of 100 miles per gallon of gasoline and has a normal operating range from full fuel of no less than 300 miles that can be sold at a cost efficient price no greater than $10,000 before January 1, 2013 shall receive a two-year tax exempt status. Additional years may be gained by the below formulae: a) For every additional twenty miles per gallon equivalency that the automobile(s) rate(s) above 100 miles per gallon, the company or firm will receive an additional year of tax-exempt status, up to five years. b) For every additional $1,000 in price reduction below $10,000 per automobile, the company or firm will receive an additional year of tax exempt status. c) For every additional 100 miles in normal operating range from full fuel that the automobile(s) rate(s), the company or firm will receive an additional year of tax exempt status. Section 4. To aid this transition and supplement revenue for this expenditure, tax rates on gasoline and diesel will be raised one dollar per gallon per month beginning June 1, 2013 and concluding January 1, 2015. a) This tax shall not apply to gasoline or diesel used in aircraft or water-based vehicles. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on February 27, 2011, 03:40:32 AM aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 28, 2011, 12:57:23 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on February 28, 2011, 02:04:45 PM Aye!
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on February 28, 2011, 03:27:39 PM aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on March 01, 2011, 12:00:20 AM We need a Justice to certify any new bills, by the way.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on March 03, 2011, 04:24:28 PM Voting has now closed.
The The Ultimate Supply-Side Economics Act has passed, and I will now sign it into law. x Oakvale Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 04, 2011, 07:11:38 PM We need a Justice to certify any new bills, by the way. It's a hard postition to keep filled. It's why we got rid of it in 2006. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on March 04, 2011, 07:47:48 PM We need a Justice to certify any new bills, by the way. It's a hard postition to keep filled. It's why we got rid of it in 2006. :P We've got a candidate, actually, we just need to sort something else out first. *mysterious cough* Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on March 14, 2011, 01:08:03 PM There's been some kind of mistake, and it's ended in me being elected to the Senate.
Which means my tenure as your Governor is over. I hope most of you think I did a half-way decent job, or, if not that, at least that I tried my best . :) It was a privelege to serve as Governor (and Lt. Governor) for the last several months, and I'm proud of the work we got done - a new branch of the legislature, a cushy job for those of the legal persuasion (:P), some actual activity - and I'm confident Archangel, who has been one of my best in-game friends and most capable allies, will build on this strong foundation as he assumes office as the Governor of the Pacific. Thank you, everyone, I hope you enjoyed it. I know I had fun. :) - Oakvale (Former) Governor of the Pacific Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on March 14, 2011, 02:47:08 PM I'm not really sure what to say. Is this a time of sad goodbyes and au revoirs? Or is it of new beginnings and brighter horizons? Only time will tell.
I've known Oakvale ever since I joined Atlasia nearly a year ago. I was new to the country and he was Lt. Governor of the Pacific region, I considered him young, brash, and a bit too offputting. Nonetheless, when Oakvale became Governor, he endorsed my campaign for Lt. Governor (Ok, so I was going up against Xahar, that might have had something to do with it). He also endorsed my failed attempts at the JCP chair, as well as the Convention Delegation. At the end of it, what began simply as a working relationship evolved into a great friendship that will always have a place in my heart. He is one of my best friends on the Atlas, and one of the best people I have met ever since I have joined. I stuck with him through the many reforms we attempted, through the gubernatorial election, through intrigue and party distrust, and through his Presidential campaign. He has supported me, and I have been happy to support him. So, I'd like to give a toast off to Oakvale. Good-bye and good riddance.;) And I wish you the best, my friend in your future endeavours. And one more to the bright future that is hopefully ahead. And with that, I am happy to accept the position of Governor. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 15, 2011, 05:23:11 AM Congratulations Oakvale, you were a great Governor and will be remembered by pacificians. :) And best of luck to Archangel, who, I'm sure, will prove himself a worthy successor.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on March 18, 2011, 11:07:20 PM New legislation for y'all.
Quote The Sylvester-Tom Act 1. Effective immediately, all de-clawing of felines is illegal withing the Pacific region. 2. Any person found guilty of paying to have their feline de-clawed shall face a fine of $5000 for the 1st offense and up to 1 month in jail for repeated offenses. 3. Any veterinarian found guilty of de-clawing felines shall face a fine of up to $7000 and shall have their license suspended for up to 3 months and permanently revoked for repeated offenses. 4. All revenue from fines shall go to Animal Shelters located in The Pacific Region. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 19, 2011, 05:27:54 PM Jail for declawing ? ??? See, I support banning declawing, but I can't imagine someone getting jailed for that.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 19, 2011, 07:45:20 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on March 19, 2011, 08:04:29 PM Aye!!! ;D
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 19, 2011, 10:00:17 PM A bill I proposed, actually having a shot at passing ??? :D
p.s. This better mean Kitten endorsements in the future. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 20, 2011, 04:14:54 AM Nay for the reason stated above. Too bad a little amedment could have been sufficient.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on March 20, 2011, 03:09:32 PM Nay for the same reasons as Antonio. A bit extreme, no?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 20, 2011, 03:10:46 PM I forgot I'm not a councilor anymore, so I get to vote here. :D
Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on March 23, 2011, 12:57:20 PM Hey, so do I get to vote here now?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 23, 2011, 01:27:33 PM Hey, so do I get to vote here now? And does Oakvales vote still count? he left us before the vote ended. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 23, 2011, 03:01:53 PM Hey, so do I get to vote here now? And does Oakvales vote still count? he left us before the vote ended. Oh well, that might be a problem indeed. A problem made even more crucial that we still don't have a Justice to make a constitutional decision. Now that I think about it, Junkie would make an epic Justice. Too bad he's already the AG. :( Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on March 23, 2011, 04:03:44 PM Aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on March 24, 2011, 04:02:18 PM Nay
And on the issue of Oakvale's vote, my personal opinion that his vote would be valid so long as he was a valid and eligible voter at the time of the vote. Just because the vote was open for a while after he voted does not change that fact in my mind. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on March 24, 2011, 09:17:15 PM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on March 25, 2011, 11:58:31 AM I wish to officially abstain due to my new presence in this region.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 27, 2011, 05:24:54 AM No need to be a specialist of PA politics to have an opinion on declawing. ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on March 28, 2011, 01:52:07 AM Two new pieces of legislation from the Council (possibly the last for a long time):
Voting ends at 7 PM PDT, April 3rd. Quote Pacific Council Reform Act 1. The Pacific Supreme Council is hereby reduced to three seats. 2. One seat will be up for contention every four months. The other two seats will be up for contention every four months in-between those of the previously noted seat. 3. The first seat will now have the classification of Class A, the remaining seats will now be classified as Class B. 4, There must be at least one candidate for each seat at all times. 5. Should there ever be a deficit in declared candidates, the Council is suspended until further notice. All legislative powers will return to the People's Assembly until the required number of candidates declared. 6. The Councilors are now allowed to vote within the People's Assembly. Quote Pacific Justice Fixed Term Act 1. The Pacific Justice is hereby required to be confirmed by the Pacific Assembly every four months from the date of appointment. 2. If the Justice is not confirmed, the position is to be vacated. 3. Should there be extraordinary circumstances, the Justice may be removed from office through form of petition. The petition must be signed by 2/3rds of the Pacific's population. Oh, and the Sylvester-Tom Act has passed, 5-3-1. (It's been up for about a week :P) x ArchangelZero Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 28, 2011, 03:43:12 AM Nay to both
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on March 28, 2011, 06:46:32 AM Aye to both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CatoMinor on March 28, 2011, 10:18:47 AM Aye to both.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on March 28, 2011, 12:34:57 PM You want to keep the Council intact? :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on March 28, 2011, 01:04:19 PM If I can vote on these, my votes are aye. If not, oh well. ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 28, 2011, 02:58:00 PM Aye/Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on March 28, 2011, 04:43:07 PM Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on March 29, 2011, 09:12:40 AM You want to keep the Council intact? :P No, I'd like to see it abolished. I do not doubt that you will be able to find three people interested enough in running for the council, but I hardly see the point of reducing the number of seats to hold plainly uncompetitive elections rather than ones without enough candidates. The fact that councilors were unable to vote in the assembly made sense, too, and I see no reason to reverse that if we are to retain the council. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on April 03, 2011, 11:09:45 PM Voting has closed, and both the Pacific Council Reform Act and the Pacific Justice Fixed Term Act have passed, 5-1-0. They await the Governor's action.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on April 04, 2011, 07:56:09 PM Thank you realistic. Both acts have passed 5-1.
x ArchangelZero Now, since there is no justice, I would expect that can be forgone until a new justice is selected. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on April 21, 2011, 08:40:07 AM Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to make a log of all pacific law, and then see if there's any way we can streamline it?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on April 21, 2011, 05:20:43 PM Voting for the April General Election opens at 9:00 PDT tonight, fyi.
Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to make a log of all pacific law, and then see if there's any way we can streamline it? I doubt anyone would mind. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on April 22, 2011, 11:01:11 AM Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to make a log of all pacific law, and then see if there's any way we can streamline it? https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Laws_of_the_Pacific_Region Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: RI on April 25, 2011, 04:14:28 PM By a count of 6-1, ArchangelZero is reelected Pacific Governor, and, by a count of 5-2, realisticidealist is reelected Pacific Lt. Governor.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on April 28, 2011, 01:13:16 AM Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to make a log of all pacific law, and then see if there's any way we can streamline it? https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Laws_of_the_Pacific_Region Like that, except every law reduced into tweet sized. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on April 30, 2011, 08:26:24 PM Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to make a log of all pacific law, and then see if there's any way we can streamline it? https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Laws_of_the_Pacific_Region Like that, except every law reduced into tweet sized. ....how would that work out? Also, I think it is time to shift our attention to the higher unemployment rate that our region is facing (translation = We'll come up with something to entice job creation soon). Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on April 30, 2011, 09:44:19 PM Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to make a log of all pacific law, and then see if there's any way we can streamline it? https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Laws_of_the_Pacific_Region Like that, except every law reduced into tweet sized. ....how would that work out? Also, I think it is time to shift our attention to the higher unemployment rate that our region is facing (translation = We'll come up with something to entice job creation soon). I've done a sample using the 3 most recent laws. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on April 30, 2011, 11:33:13 PM Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to make a log of all pacific law, and then see if there's any way we can streamline it? https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Laws_of_the_Pacific_Region Like that, except every law reduced into tweet sized. ....how would that work out? Also, I think it is time to shift our attention to the higher unemployment rate that our region is facing (translation = We'll come up with something to entice job creation soon). I've done a sample using the 3 most recent laws. Happen to have a screenshot? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on May 02, 2011, 03:48:53 AM Click the link and scroll to the bottom, silly :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on May 02, 2011, 08:37:23 PM Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to make a log of all pacific law, and then see if there's any way we can streamline it? https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Laws_of_the_Pacific_Region Like that, except every law reduced into tweet sized. ....how would that work out? Also, I think it is time to shift our attention to the higher unemployment rate that our region is facing (translation = We'll come up with something to entice job creation soon). As far as the unemployment...what do you have in mind? I could probably help out. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on May 06, 2011, 10:00:03 AM Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to make a log of all pacific law, and then see if there's any way we can streamline it? https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Laws_of_the_Pacific_Region Like that, except every law reduced into tweet sized. ....how would that work out? Also, I think it is time to shift our attention to the higher unemployment rate that our region is facing (translation = We'll come up with something to entice job creation soon). As far as the unemployment...what do you have in mind? I could probably help out. I was thinking of some sort of tax incentive for the Private Sector since we all know lowering taxes isn't going to happen. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on May 08, 2011, 08:59:27 PM Would anyone mind terribly if I tried to make a log of all pacific law, and then see if there's any way we can streamline it? https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Laws_of_the_Pacific_Region Like that, except every law reduced into tweet sized. ....how would that work out? Also, I think it is time to shift our attention to the higher unemployment rate that our region is facing (translation = We'll come up with something to entice job creation soon). As far as the unemployment...what do you have in mind? I could probably help out. I was thinking of some sort of tax incentive for the Private Sector since we all know lowering taxes isn't going to happen. ;) Good idea. Maybe we should try to identify which industries we have that are stuggling and also identify new industries that we would like to become a leader in and target the incentives there as opposed to just generally. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on May 28, 2011, 01:33:06 AM Alright, I'm sorry I haven't been as active as I should be. Real life has kept me extremely busy, but I was able to write up a quick draft. Let me know what you all think:
Quote Give and You Shall Receive Act 1. To run until August 2011, all businesses that report a 5 - 10% increase in employment may be eligible for up to a 5% decrease in regional corporate taxes. 2. The amount of tax levied shall be proportionate to the percentage of employment increase (1% levied for every 2% increase in employment). 3. When the deadline of this bill is reached, it may be reintroduced to the legislature with modifications. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on June 10, 2011, 04:19:25 AM Quote Give and You Shall Receive Act What is the current regional tax rate?1. To run until August 2011, all businesses that report a 5 - 10% increase in employment may be eligible for up to a 5% decrease in regional corporate taxes. 2. The amount of tax levied shall be proportionate to the percentage of employment increase (1% levied for every 2% increase in employment). 3. When the deadline of this bill is reached, it may be reintroduced to the legislature with modifications. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on June 11, 2011, 11:23:26 PM I'd like to introduce this bill:
Pacific Representation Act Section 1: The Pacific region shall elect two Class A Senators to the Atlasian Senate. The two Senators shall be elected in concurrent but separate elections under the same schedule all other regions elect Class A Senators. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 12, 2011, 12:38:24 AM I'd like to introduce this bill: Pacific Representation Act Section 1: The Pacific region shall elect two Class A Senators to the Atlasian Senate. The two Senators shall be elected in concurrent but separate elections under the same schedule all other regions elect Class A Senators. X Bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on June 12, 2011, 01:58:06 AM Quote Give and You Shall Receive Act What is the current regional tax rate?1. To run until August 2011, all businesses that report a 5 - 10% increase in employment may be eligible for up to a 5% decrease in regional corporate taxes. 2. The amount of tax levied shall be proportionate to the percentage of employment increase (1% levied for every 2% increase in employment). 3. When the deadline of this bill is reached, it may be reintroduced to the legislature with modifications. I think it is around 10% right now. There aren't any reliable recent records on the tax rate for the past few admins. I'd like to introduce this bill: Pacific Representation Act Section 1: The Pacific region shall elect two Class A Senators to the Atlasian Senate. The two Senators shall be elected in concurrent but separate elections under the same schedule all other regions elect Class A Senators. X Bgwah So after reading through the Third Constitution, apparently, this is legal. Of course, I am opposed to it but I can't really hold up debate. So I'll leave debate open for a week on both bills. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 12, 2011, 02:40:00 AM So we have the constitutional right to elect as many senators as we want ? That makes no sense.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Oakvale on June 12, 2011, 02:31:10 PM I've flown in from my adopted home to urge you all to vote for this constitutional-crisis-causing bill. God knows we could use the excitement. :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on June 12, 2011, 03:37:23 PM I won't. Plus, I am glad that Kal acted so quickly to try and stop this. Although, I think Marokai's analysis about the numbers is correct, I think having the constitution put this out so clearly is good. It is quite amazing that no tried this before. It is quite brilliant. My hat is off to Meeker for catching this. That being said, I think it destroys the point of all Senate elections if regions just start creating senate seats. It will lead to senate seat creation wars where in parties with more power in a region and thus confident of victory will race to create seats to control the Senate.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on June 13, 2011, 07:54:05 AM I'd like to introduce this bill: Pacific Representation Act Section 1: The Pacific region shall elect two Class A Senators to the Atlasian Senate. The two Senators shall be elected in concurrent but separate elections under the same schedule all other regions elect Class A Senators. x Ebowed Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 16, 2011, 01:11:30 AM I won't. Plus, I am glad that Kal acted so quickly to try and stop this. Although, I think Marokai's analysis about the numbers is correct, I think having the constitution put this out so clearly is good. It is quite amazing that no tried this before. It is quite brilliant. My hat is off to Meeker for catching this. That being said, I think it destroys the point of all Senate elections if regions just start creating senate seats. It will lead to senate seat creation wars where in parties with more power in a region and thus confident of victory will race to create seats to control the Senate. I will oppose this bill as well. That might be fun (and it is indeed extremely amusing ;D) but we can't create a constitutional crisis just for fun. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 16, 2011, 04:59:01 PM I won't. Plus, I am glad that Kal acted so quickly to try and stop this. Although, I think Marokai's analysis about the numbers is correct, I think having the constitution put this out so clearly is good. It is quite amazing that no tried this before. It is quite brilliant. My hat is off to Meeker for catching this. That being said, I think it destroys the point of all Senate elections if regions just start creating senate seats. It will lead to senate seat creation wars where in parties with more power in a region and thus confident of victory will race to create seats to control the Senate. I get the distinct impression there will be an attempt to torpedo the Constitutional fix for this sort of thing at the ratification level. But we'll see I suppose. People need to realize what is excitement and what is just causing alot of a frustrating mess for no reason that will either get us nowhere or just be destructive. There's no good outcome to this. I know you all want to find "excitement" in your own perverse way, but speaking out of character here as people you guys must realize this is not going to do anything good. You're trying to trivialize the very thing Atlasia is founded on, and once you start pulling threads out here and there and stop playing along in the game you're just going to break the whole thing. It's not going to be "fun" for anyone, it's just detrimental all around. Ultimately you're breaking the very nature of elections with something like this and I would just implore you to be serious just for a second as, you know, actual people, and not do this. This is a game, the second you start disrupting every possible thing you can at every turn, the whole thing just falls apart. That's what you're doing here. You're not making the game more fun, you're trying to knock down support beams that hold the game up at all. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on June 16, 2011, 05:50:08 PM Alright, everyone take a steap back and count to 10......
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 16, 2011, 05:50:45 PM Alright, everyone take a steap back and count to 10...... *breathes* since you're a Midwesterner you need to give us a *hughughug* lesson :( Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on June 16, 2011, 05:56:17 PM Alright, everyone take a steap back and count to 10...... *breathes* since you're a Midwesterner you need to give us a *hughughug* lesson :( Yes, that sounds ideal. ;) [proceeds to hug all in arguement] Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on June 20, 2011, 08:49:03 PM Well it's been a week, so voting is open for both.
Give and You Shall Receive Act: Aye Pacific Representation Act: Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on June 21, 2011, 12:29:47 AM Give and You Shall Receive Act: Nay
Pacific Representation Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on June 21, 2011, 12:39:38 AM Give and You Shall Receive Act: Nay
Pacific Representation Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on June 21, 2011, 01:08:59 AM aye
aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on June 22, 2011, 11:19:31 AM Give and You Shall Receive Act: Aye
Pacific Representation Act: Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on June 22, 2011, 03:07:11 PM Give and You Shall Receive Act: Aye
Pacific Representation Act: Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on June 23, 2011, 02:30:38 AM Give and You Shall Receive Act: Aye
Pacific Representation Act: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on June 23, 2011, 10:41:22 AM Hey are we going to open a booth on the amendments or did I miss it?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on June 23, 2011, 06:17:20 PM Hey are we going to open a booth on the amendments or did I miss it? I just did. Sorry all, I didn't realize I wouldn't have internet for the first two days here in Chicago. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 08, 2011, 11:47:41 PM Sustainable Pacifican Cities Bill
1) There shall be no locally-mandated building height limits below 125' within 1/4 a mile of a rail transit system station, including but not limited to rapid transit and light rail. 2) There shall be no locally-mandated parking requirement above 0.5 parking stalls per unit within 1/4 a mile of a rail transit system station, including but not limited to rapid transit and light rail. 3) High-density, transit-oriented residential developments within 1/2 a mile of a rail transit system, including but not limited to rapid transit and light rail, as well as bus rapid transit, shall be exempt from regional taxes. High-density residential projects shall be defined as those with at least 100 units per acre. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 14, 2011, 04:40:47 PM ^ I of course sign the above bill: x bgwah
Oceania Incorporation Bill 1) Whereas Oceania has recently been admitted as a state to Atlasia and become the 11th state of the Pacific Region following the passage of the federal government's Island Enfranchisement Act. 2) Whereas the state of Oceania is composed of the former Atlasian territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, with the admittance of Palau, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Samoa pre-approved should they decide to join by democratic means. 3) Whereas each former territory and each future potential entrant of Oceania currently have their own local governments and are separated from each other by distances of up to many hundreds of miles. 4) Therefore each former territory and potential future entrant shall maintain their local governments which shall become county-level equivalents in the new state of Oceania. The state of Oceania will thus largely be used as a vehicle to ensure full voting rights for Oceanians in federal elections. x bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on July 19, 2011, 01:18:39 PM Obviously, the bill will only be up for debate until there are others to cosign with you. :P
Now that I am back from New York, I can be on here now (I miss having a life): Give and You Shall Receive Act: Passed 5-2-0 Pacific Representation Act: Passed 4-3-0 Sorry guys but I'm going to have to pull a veto on the Pacific Representation Act, considering that Kal's amendment has rendered it void nonetheless. x ArchangelZero Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on July 19, 2011, 06:04:08 PM Are there amendments we are supposed to be voting on?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on July 19, 2011, 06:39:13 PM Obviously, the bill will only be up for debate until there are others to cosign with you. :P Now that I am back from New York, I can be on here now (I miss having a life): Give and You Shall Receive Act: Passed 5-2-0 Pacific Representation Act: Passed 4-3-0 Sorry guys but I'm going to have to pull a veto on the Pacific Representation Act, considering that Kal's amendment has rendered it void nonetheless. x ArchangelZero As much as I believe that the veto is the right thing to do, I believe the Constitution says you have to do it within one week of its passage. Am I wrong on that? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on July 20, 2011, 10:40:16 AM Obviously, the bill will only be up for debate until there are others to cosign with you. :P Now that I am back from New York, I can be on here now (I miss having a life): Give and You Shall Receive Act: Passed 5-2-0 Pacific Representation Act: Passed 4-3-0 Sorry guys but I'm going to have to pull a veto on the Pacific Representation Act, considering that Kal's amendment has rendered it void nonetheless. x ArchangelZero As much as I believe that the veto is the right thing to do, I believe the Constitution says you have to do it within one week of its passage. Am I wrong on that? Well that is correct. Hm, seems like we have hit a little snag here. Obviously, Kal's amendment should cause the bill to become void anyways, but I am not sure whether or not technically it goes into the statute. Or else this might be a legal dispute (please no). Are there amendments we are supposed to be voting on? Yes, and once again, I profusely apologize for the lateness of the voting booths being put up. I did not anticipate Hotel Operations to take up that much of my time the past few weeks.:( Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 21, 2011, 08:28:10 PM It should go into the statute. It simply won't take effect unless there is a further amendment to the federal constitution. I'm not an expert in legalese, but I think it might technically stay at bill-status (instead of act-status).
Anyway, I'm re-introducing the following if necessary. Please sign them!!! They need two more people other than myself to sign them. :) Sustainable Pacifican Cities Bill 1) There shall be no locally-mandated building height limits below 125' within 1/4 a mile of a rail transit system station, including but not limited to rapid transit and light rail. 2) There shall be no locally-mandated parking requirement above 0.5 parking stalls per unit within 1/4 a mile of a rail transit system station, including but not limited to rapid transit and light rail. 3) High-density, transit-oriented residential developments within 1/2 a mile of a rail transit system, including but not limited to rapid transit and light rail, as well as bus rapid transit, shall be exempt from regional taxes. High-density residential projects shall be defined as those with at least 100 units per acre. Oceania Incorporation Bill 1) Whereas Oceania has recently been admitted as a state to Atlasia and become the 11th state of the Pacific Region following the passage of the federal government's Island Enfranchisement Act. 2) Whereas the state of Oceania is composed of the former Atlasian territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, with the admittance of Palau, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Samoa pre-approved should they decide to join by democratic means. 3) Whereas each former territory and each future potential entrant of Oceania currently have their own local governments and are separated from each other by distances of up to many hundreds of miles. 4) Therefore each former territory and potential future entrant shall maintain their local governments which shall become county-level equivalents in the new state of Oceania. The state of Oceania will thus largely be used as a vehicle to ensure full voting rights for Oceanians in federal elections. X bgwah X bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sbane on July 21, 2011, 11:18:29 PM Sustainable Pacifican Cities Bill
X Sbane Oceania Incorporation Bill X Sbane Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MaxQue on July 22, 2011, 03:48:54 AM Oceania Incorporation Bill
X MaxQue For the other bill, I don't know yet. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 22, 2011, 07:54:15 AM X Antonio V, to the two bills.
As for the PA representation Act, I think it should go in the Statute, but could be constitutionally challenged. Wanna see an Atlasia vs Pacific case ? ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on July 24, 2011, 12:38:56 AM X Antonio V, to the two bills. As for the PA representation Act, I think it should go in the Statute, but could be constitutionally challenged. Wanna see an Atlasia vs Pacific case ? ;D That would be rather interesting to see, if for the wrong reasons.;) Voting is open on the Pacifican Cities Bill and the Oceania Incorporation Bill. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 24, 2011, 12:41:10 AM Sustainable Pacifican Cities Bill: Aye
Oceania Incorporation Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on July 24, 2011, 01:13:23 AM Sustainable Pacifican Cities Bill: Aye Oceania Incorporation Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on July 24, 2011, 02:00:26 AM Sustainable Pacifican Cities Bill: Aye
Oceania Incorporation Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on July 24, 2011, 02:15:38 AM For the record, I will sue the Governor if he does not open a booth in the October elections for the second Pacific seat. The law is not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court rules it so, and if the Governor does not enforce and follow the laws of this region then he is not doing his elected duty.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 24, 2011, 05:44:21 AM Aye/Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on July 24, 2011, 10:29:23 AM For the record, I will sue the Governor if he does not open a booth in the October elections for the second Pacific seat. The law is not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court rules it so, and if the Governor does not enforce and follow the laws of this region then he is not doing his elected duty. It does present a good question. Legally, the statute is in direct violation of the Constitution. However, it was legally passed by the Region (although after becoming unconstitutional). To throw one more snag in it, it was vetoed by the Governor. Now I do believe that the veto was unconstitutional by the Pacific Constitution, but as you have pointed out, it is still law until struck down by a Court. So here is how I see it. The law has been vetoed. It is no longer valid, thus the Governor does not have to open an election because the law is struck. The Governor has not rescinded his veto, and I don't think he can. So first, someone has to go to court to get the veto oveturned on Constitiutional grounds (do we have a regional justice anymore?). If the veto is not upheld, then you can get to the voting booth issue. For legal geeks, this is pretty cool. You have an unconstituional statute vetoed illegally by the Governor. This could become very interesting. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on July 24, 2011, 10:30:58 AM Sustainable Pacifican Cities Bill: Nay
Oceania Incorporation Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 24, 2011, 10:56:54 AM Add to that that we don't have a Pacific Justice since I left the office in January... I think we're going to enjoy some massive legal bickering. ;D
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Meeker on July 24, 2011, 10:18:20 PM The Pacific Representation Act also isn't actually unconstitutional (even with the amendment) if we tweak its language a tad. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it though.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on July 24, 2011, 11:24:26 PM The Pacific Representation Act also isn't actually unconstitutional (even with the amendment) if we tweak its language a tad. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it though. You might have a point from a strictly legal point of view. However, as the veto still stands the bill would have to be re-introduced again and passed. Unless, of course you go to court and get the veto declared unconstitutional. But, then the Court may take a look at the statute and strike it down. I have made it clear I do not support this because I think it is unconstitutional, will lead to a regional senate creation war, and overall take away from the fun. But the legal geek in me tips my hat. It was and is brilliant. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on July 25, 2011, 07:40:20 AM Another wrinkle I just thought of. This statute created a Federal position not a regional one. Thus, I do not believe the Governor would be able to open a voting booth as that would the duty of Teddy, I believe.
Interesting little chain of events. Unconstitutional law illegally vetoed that could require an usurption of federal power by a regional government. This is not what I expected to encounter when coming to the Pacific, but it is sure fun to think about. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on July 25, 2011, 08:19:09 AM Sustainable Pacifican Cities Bill: Aye
Oceania Incorporation Bill: Aye (P.S. If no-one is currently serving as Pacific justice, could I volunteer for the position?) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on July 26, 2011, 10:52:45 PM Sustainable Pacifican Cities Bill: Aye Oceania Incorporation Bill: Aye (P.S. If no-one is currently serving as Pacific justice, could I volunteer for the position?) I certainly wouldn't mind, but the Governor would have to appoint you. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 03, 2011, 10:37:58 PM Since the amendment to the federal constitution allowing the regions to choose how their vacant Senate seats are filled was passed, I didn't think it would hurt to introduce legislation dealing with this...
Here is a starter bill that just uses the current and de facto system: Senate Vacancy Bill 1) Should there be a vacancy for any federal Senate seat delegated to the Pacific Region, the Governor shall appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term. I'm certainly open to more ideas--- special elections, whatever. I'm not asking for signatures or voting yet. I just thought this might be something worth discussing. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 04, 2011, 04:36:42 AM It could be nice to have by-elections, if the vacancy occur before 1 month prior to the regular election.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on August 04, 2011, 07:20:02 AM It could be nice to have by-elections, if the vacancy occur before 1 month prior to the regular election. I agree. In Wisconsin, when local seats become open there is a deadline. If the opening happens before that date, there is an appointment. If after that date, it is filled with by an election. I think Antonio's idea of switching that makes sense. If it is close to the next election, no reason for two elections in short order. However, if there is a few months, it would make sense to have a special election. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 04, 2011, 06:54:35 PM What about six weeks? That's what the federal government uses for the at-large seats, and I'm a fan of consistency. :P
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on August 04, 2011, 08:44:03 PM Both the Sustainable Pacifican Cities Bill (3-1) and the Oceania Incorporation Act (4-0) have passed.
x ArchangelZero Winfield sent me a copy of the Vote Sanctity Act, and I would like to get the citizens' opinions on it. Here is the text: Vote Sanctity Act Quote A voter who edits his ballot any length of time after it has been posted in the voting booth thread for any Northeast Election nullifies it. Election authorities shall not count a ballot altered in the above manner.Vote Sanctity Act A voter who edits his ballot any length of time after it has been posted in the voting booth thread for any Northeast Election nullifies it. Election authorities shall not count a ballot altered in the above manner. Do you guys think that a similar act would be good for the Pacific? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 05, 2011, 04:04:59 PM Both the Sustainable Pacifican Cities Bill (3-1) and the Oceania Incorporation Act (4-0) have passed. x ArchangelZero Winfield sent me a copy of the Vote Sanctity Act, and I would like to get the citizens' opinions on it. Here is the text: Vote Sanctity Act Quote A voter who edits his ballot any length of time after it has been posted in the voting booth thread for any Northeast Election nullifies it. Election authorities shall not count a ballot altered in the above manner.Vote Sanctity Act A voter who edits his ballot any length of time after it has been posted in the voting booth thread for any Northeast Election nullifies it. Election authorities shall not count a ballot altered in the above manner. Do you guys think that a similar act would be good for the Pacific? I don't understand the point of this bill. I think 20 minutes is a fair delay for allowing vote change. Some people may vote too precipitously and thus have to rectify their votes : it happened to me a few times. I don't see why this would be made illegal. Also, I back Bgwah's proposal. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on August 05, 2011, 10:33:05 PM What about six weeks? That's what the federal government uses for the at-large seats, and I'm a fan of consistency. :P That seems good. It makes sense to be consistent. Also, I am with Antonio on the voter act, this is not something we need to mess with Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 07, 2011, 03:41:15 AM Here is my updated verison:
Senate Vacancy Bill 1) Should there be a vacancy for any federal Senate seat delegated to the Pacific Region, there shall be a special election held the following weekend during standard election hours. There must be a minimum of 72 hours to allow candidate declarations, and the election shall be moved back one week if necessary. 2) If there are less than six weeks of the term left at the time of vacancy, then the Governor shall appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term. What do you guys think?? (I'm thinking this doesn't need to be a constitutional amendment... but I wouldn't mind a 2nd opinion on it) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2011, 05:20:21 AM That's fine with me. ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 08, 2011, 02:48:01 AM Alright I'm officially introducing this then. Please sign! :)
Senate Vacancy Bill 1) Should there be a vacancy for any federal Senate seat delegated to the Pacific Region, there shall be a special election held the following weekend during standard election hours. There must be a minimum of 72 hours to allow candidate declarations, and the election shall be moved back one week if necessary. 2) If there are less than six weeks of the term left at the time of vacancy, then the Governor shall appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term. What do you guys think?? (I'm thinking this doesn't need to be a constitutional amendment... but I wouldn't mind a 2nd opinion on it) x bgwah Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 08, 2011, 09:58:37 AM Alright I'm officially introducing this then. Please sign! :) Senate Vacancy Bill 1) Should there be a vacancy for any federal Senate seat delegated to the Pacific Region, there shall be a special election held the following weekend during standard election hours. There must be a minimum of 72 hours to allow candidate declarations, and the election shall be moved back one week if necessary. 2) If there are less than six weeks of the term left at the time of vacancy, then the Governor shall appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term. What do you guys think?? (I'm thinking this doesn't need to be a constitutional amendment... but I wouldn't mind a 2nd opinion on it) x bgwah X Antonio V Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on August 09, 2011, 07:41:56 AM Alright I'm officially introducing this then. Please sign! :) Senate Vacancy Bill 1) Should there be a vacancy for any federal Senate seat delegated to the Pacific Region, there shall be a special election held the following weekend during standard election hours. There must be a minimum of 72 hours to allow candidate declarations, and the election shall be moved back one week if necessary. 2) If there are less than six weeks of the term left at the time of vacancy, then the Governor shall appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term. What do you guys think?? (I'm thinking this doesn't need to be a constitutional amendment... but I wouldn't mind a 2nd opinion on it) x bgwah x Junkie Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on August 13, 2011, 10:48:05 PM Alright I'm officially introducing this then. Please sign! :) Senate Vacancy Bill 1) Should there be a vacancy for any federal Senate seat delegated to the Pacific Region, there shall be a special election held the following weekend during standard election hours. There must be a minimum of 72 hours to allow candidate declarations, and the election shall be moved back one week if necessary. 2) If there are less than six weeks of the term left at the time of vacancy, then the Governor shall appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term. What do you guys think?? (I'm thinking this doesn't need to be a constitutional amendment... but I wouldn't mind a 2nd opinion on it) x bgwah x Junkie xArchangelZero I think it is time for a vote. Voting is open for one week. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on August 14, 2011, 04:17:29 AM Senate Vacancy Bill: Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 14, 2011, 05:09:26 AM Senate Vacancy Bill: Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on August 15, 2011, 10:53:02 PM Senate Vacancy Bill: aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Junkie on August 18, 2011, 09:04:01 AM Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on August 22, 2011, 10:08:07 PM The Senate Vacancy Vote has passed 4-0.
x ArchangelZero Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on September 19, 2011, 10:41:03 AM Governor, when will you post the amendment for voting?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 23, 2011, 06:27:18 PM () WE, Kalwejt I By the Grace of God Apostolic King of Jerusalem, Emperor of Alabama, Grand Duke of Panhandle, Hereditary Sheriff of Beechum County Custodian of two Holy Baptist Megachurches, Field Marshal of the Imperial Army, Grand Admiral of the Imperial Navy, Marshal of the Imperial Air Forces, Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fire Department, Grand Master of the Order of Rising Cotton, etc. etc... We do hereby declare was against the evil communist region of Pacific. X. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 24, 2011, 05:05:50 AM We do hereby declare was against the evil communist region of Pacific. Cool. If Your Excellence were nice enough to explain to us stupid commies what the hell this sentence means, it'd be very generous from Him. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 24, 2011, 06:40:42 AM We do hereby declare was against the evil communist region of Pacific. Cool. If Your Excellence were nice enough to explain to us stupid commies what the hell this sentence means, it'd be very generous from Him. I wanted to say "war" but now forget about it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 24, 2011, 07:16:41 AM We do hereby declare was against the evil communist region of Pacific. Cool. If Your Excellence were nice enough to explain to us stupid commies what the hell this sentence means, it'd be very generous from Him. I wanted to say "war" but now forget about it. I know. ;) But it's far more funny to pretend misunderstanding. :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on October 09, 2011, 11:56:25 PM Governor, when will you post the amendment for voting? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on October 10, 2011, 05:16:39 AM There is a possibility that the Atlasian people will ratify an amendment legalizing conscription:
The right to conscript citizens at least eighteen years of age shall be reserved to the various regions in times of direct attack on Atlasian soil by legitimate foreign governments so long as they allow exemptions for conscientious objectors, the infirm or otherwise disabled, those already enrolled in a higher education institution at the time conscription begins, or heads of single parent households. In the event that this monstrosity is codified, we must immediately prohibit such servitude within the Pacific. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on October 20, 2011, 12:58:59 AM Yes, we must.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on October 27, 2011, 04:37:34 AM I have some proposals for bills I will be bringing forward.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on October 27, 2011, 04:48:02 AM The 90% Tax Act.
1. This act reaffirms the right of the region to set it's own taxes at whatever levels it feels best for it's own taxpayers. 2. No form of taxation, be it income, corporate, or sales, can add to, when federal taxes are considered, over 90%. Federal numbers are taken as base numbers with Regional numbers added to this. In the event that regional taxes would push this number over 90%, the regional tax is then capped so that the new total of regional and federal taxes totals 90%. 3. The Governor may propose a referendum for repeal of this act if he or she has sufficient reason to believe the Federal government is taking advantage of this act to, in some way, harm the Pacific region. This will fix the problem noted some time ago where our Regional and Federal income tax rates for the top bracket total over 100% The Tax Exemption Reform Act 1. Total regional tax exemptions, including various reduced rates, on personal income taxes, may not total over $100,000. Should exemptions total more than that amount, the lesser of that amount and $100,000 shall be the total exemption. 2. If the taxpayer is claiming an income of over $1,000,000 then any income over that amount, regardless of source, is taxed at the highest rate for regular income. Lottery, Casino, or Gambling income is exempted from this portion. This will fix the problem of people like Warren Buffett, for example, paying less in tax than middle class people The Elections Crisis Act 1. In the event of a crisis in the region that results in vacancies in the Legislature, Governor, Lt.Governor, Judicial officer, or any other officer that, or their incapacitation or otherwise inability to carry out their duties, thus results in nobody being otherwise legally able to administer and/or certify an election, and, a general election is scheduled to take place within the next week, the "Elections Crisis Act" is activated. 2. This act allows for others to be given the temporary power to administer and/or certify an election to replace those vacant offices as needed. These persons are listed in section 3 of this act, and the list shall be followed in order, first to last. 3. A- SoFE B- Regional Senator C- Any other Senators from the region in the Senate, starting with the member who received the most ballots on the first ballot of the election that placed him or her in the Senate. D- Any person nominated by the Legislature within 72 hours of the activation of the act; with the time to vote yea or nay on that single person not included, so long as the time set aside to vote does not extend past 96 hours. E- The President, or anyone else authorized by the President to act on his or her behalf. This will ensure a problem like those faced in the NE will never, ever, happen here The Debt Tax Donation Act 1. A section shall be added to all regional personal income tax forms that would allow taxpayers to donate a portion of their tax refund to the region to help pay off the regional debt. An additional line of text with a check box will allow taxpayers to donate as to round down to the nearest $10.00. Upon the elimination of the regional debt, this shall be removed from tax forms. A donation is not required and a taxpayer may leave this blank, and thus donate nothing. This is on Ontario tax forms, and I donated to round to the nearest $10.00 so why not? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sbane on October 27, 2011, 02:25:23 PM The 90% Tax Act. 1. This act reaffirms the right of the region to set it's own taxes at whatever levels it feels best for it's own taxpayers. 2. No form of taxation, be it income, corporate, or sales, can add to, when federal taxes are considered, over 90%. Federal numbers are taken as base numbers with Regional numbers added to this. In the event that regional taxes would push this number over 90%, the regional tax is then capped so that the new total of regional and federal taxes totals 90%. 3. The Governor may propose a referendum for repeal of this act if he or she has sufficient reason to believe the Federal government is taking advantage of this act to, in some way, harm the Pacific region. This will fix the problem noted some time ago where our Regional and Federal income tax rates for the top bracket total over 100% The Tax Exemption Reform Act 1. Total regional tax exemptions, including various reduced rates, on personal income taxes, may not total over $100,000. Should exemptions total more than that amount, the lesser of that amount and $100,000 shall be the total exemption. 2. If the taxpayer is claiming an income of over $1,000,000 then any income over that amount, regardless of source, is taxed at the highest rate for regular income. Lottery, Casino, or Gambling income is exempted from this portion. This will fix the problem of people like Warren Buffett, for example, paying less in tax than middle class people The Elections Crisis Act 1. In the event of a crisis in the region that results in vacancies in the Legislature, Governor, Lt.Governor, Judicial officer, or any other officer that, or their incapacitation or otherwise inability to carry out their duties, thus results in nobody being otherwise legally able to administer and/or certify an election, and, a general election is scheduled to take place within the next week, the "Elections Crisis Act" is activated. 2. This act allows for others to be given the temporary power to administer and/or certify an election to replace those vacant offices as needed. These persons are listed in section 3 of this act, and the list shall be followed in order, first to last. 3. A- SoFE B- Regional Senator C- Any other Senators from the region in the Senate, starting with the member who received the most ballots on the first ballot of the election that placed him or her in the Senate. D- Any person nominated by the Legislature within 72 hours of the activation of the act; with the time to vote yea or nay on that single person not included, so long as the time set aside to vote does not extend past 96 hours. E- The President, or anyone else authorized by the President to act on his or her behalf. This will ensure a problem like those faced in the NE will never, ever, happen here X sbane Enthusiastically support the 90% tax act. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on October 28, 2011, 02:04:18 AM x Jackson
I see no problem with this sensible legislation. Support. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on October 28, 2011, 09:39:41 PM I have no issue with the first two, although with the Elections Crisis Act, wouldn't it be more apt for regional officials to have presendence over federal since we are filling regional offices?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on October 30, 2011, 12:37:14 AM I'm willing to consider an amendment to the following as friendly:
3. A- Regional Senator B- Any other Senators from the region in the Senate, starting with the member who received the most ballots on the first ballot of the election that placed him or her in the Senate. C- Any person nominated by the Legislature within 72 hours of the activation of the act; with the time to vote yea or nay on that single person not included, so long as the time set aside to vote does not extend past 96 hours. D - SoFE E- The President, or anyone else authorized by the President to act on his or her behalf. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 01, 2011, 02:33:12 PM The 90% Tax Act. 1. This act reaffirms the right of the region to set it's own taxes at whatever levels it feels best for it's own taxpayers. 2. No form of taxation, be it income, corporate, or sales, can add to, when federal taxes are considered, over 90%. Federal numbers are taken as base numbers with Regional numbers added to this. In the event that regional taxes would push this number over 90%, the regional tax is then capped so that the new total of regional and federal taxes totals 90%. 3. The Governor may propose a referendum for repeal of this act if he or she has sufficient reason to believe the Federal government is taking advantage of this act to, in some way, harm the Pacific region. This will fix the problem noted some time ago where our Regional and Federal income tax rates for the top bracket total over 100% Make it 100%, and I'll support it. Quote The Tax Exemption Reform Act 1. Total regional tax exemptions, including various reduced rates, on personal income taxes, may not total over $100,000. Should exemptions total more than that amount, the lesser of that amount and $100,000 shall be the total exemption. 2. If the taxpayer is claiming an income of over $1,000,000 then any income over that amount, regardless of source, is taxed at the highest rate for regular income. Lottery, Casino, or Gambling income is exempted from this portion. This will fix the problem of people like Warren Buffett, for example, paying less in tax than middle class people X Antonio V Quote The Elections Crisis Act 1. In the event of a crisis in the region that results in vacancies in the Legislature, Governor, Lt.Governor, Judicial officer, or any other officer that, or their incapacitation or otherwise inability to carry out their duties, thus results in nobody being otherwise legally able to administer and/or certify an election, and, a general election is scheduled to take place within the next week, the "Elections Crisis Act" is activated. 2. This act allows for others to be given the temporary power to administer and/or certify an election to replace those vacant offices as needed. These persons are listed in section 3 of this act, and the list shall be followed in order, first to last. 3. A- SoFE B- Regional Senator C- Any other Senators from the region in the Senate, starting with the member who received the most ballots on the first ballot of the election that placed him or her in the Senate. D- Any person nominated by the Legislature within 72 hours of the activation of the act; with the time to vote yea or nay on that single person not included, so long as the time set aside to vote does not extend past 96 hours. E- The President, or anyone else authorized by the President to act on his or her behalf. This will ensure a problem like those faced in the NE will never, ever, happen here X Antonio V Quote The Debt Tax Donation Act 1. A section shall be added to all regional personal income tax forms that would allow taxpayers to donate a portion of their tax refund to the region to help pay off the regional debt. An additional line of text with a check box will allow taxpayers to donate as to round down to the nearest $10.00. Upon the elimination of the regional debt, this shall be removed from tax forms. A donation is not required and a taxpayer may leave this blank, and thus donate nothing. This is on Ontario tax forms, and I donated to round to the nearest $10.00 so why not? X Antonio V Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sbane on November 01, 2011, 07:11:26 PM The 90% Tax Act. 1. This act reaffirms the right of the region to set it's own taxes at whatever levels it feels best for it's own taxpayers. 2. No form of taxation, be it income, corporate, or sales, can add to, when federal taxes are considered, over 90%. Federal numbers are taken as base numbers with Regional numbers added to this. In the event that regional taxes would push this number over 90%, the regional tax is then capped so that the new total of regional and federal taxes totals 90%. 3. The Governor may propose a referendum for repeal of this act if he or she has sufficient reason to believe the Federal government is taking advantage of this act to, in some way, harm the Pacific region. This will fix the problem noted some time ago where our Regional and Federal income tax rates for the top bracket total over 100% Make it 100%, and I'll support it. Which would lead to no revenue, you realize that, right? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on November 02, 2011, 10:04:07 AM A move from 90% to 100% will not get my support.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 02, 2011, 10:19:05 AM Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong about taxing all income after a certain threshold. I don't necessarily want it to be that way, but I sure don't want to make it impossible.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on November 03, 2011, 12:01:28 AM I do see something wrong with it and I think most Pacificianadiananianereeseians agree with me.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on November 03, 2011, 11:58:19 AM I do see something wrong with it and I think most Pacificianadiananianereeseians agree with me. Well, it essentially amounts to a maximum income, which can be part of a larger scheme to equalize the distribution of resources. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 07, 2011, 10:29:44 PM The Debt Tax Donation Act, Tax Exemption Reform Act and Elections Crisis Act have the allotted number of signatures. Voting is now open for one week on all three.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 11, 2011, 05:42:21 AM Aye to all
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on November 11, 2011, 05:50:22 PM Aye
Aye Nay Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 11, 2011, 10:55:36 PM Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on November 14, 2011, 12:21:59 AM Aye to all.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on November 14, 2011, 07:19:55 AM Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on November 17, 2011, 12:48:05 AM When do we start debating the bills
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on November 17, 2011, 03:51:50 AM Knowing our legislature, never.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 17, 2011, 06:13:32 AM Knowing our legislature, never. We should just pass a bunch of crazy bills by default, just for the lulz. That would send a message. ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on November 17, 2011, 05:51:05 PM Mandatory Murder of Kittens Act of 2011 anyone?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on November 17, 2011, 11:47:23 PM I move we get on to debating these bills
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on November 17, 2011, 11:50:15 PM Or if there is no debate I move we pass them into law
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on November 18, 2011, 05:23:54 PM I agree.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on November 18, 2011, 06:20:40 PM Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 19, 2011, 02:36:55 AM All three bills have been passed 5-0, with the exception of the Elections Crisis Act, which passes 3-2.
x ArchangelZero The floor is now open to new bills. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sbane on November 20, 2011, 03:40:27 AM Quote The 90% Tax Act. 1. This act reaffirms the right of the region to set it's own taxes at whatever levels it feels best for it's own taxpayers. 2. No form of taxation, be it income, corporate, or sales, can add to, when federal taxes are considered, over 90%. Federal numbers are taken as base numbers with Regional numbers added to this. In the event that regional taxes would push this number over 90%, the regional tax is then capped so that the new total of regional and federal taxes totals 90%. 3. The Governor may propose a referendum for repeal of this act if he or she has sufficient reason to believe the Federal government is taking advantage of this act to, in some way, harm the Pacific region. Reintroducing this. I could have sworn it got enough signatures to get voted on but oh well....you need two, am I right? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on November 20, 2011, 05:54:10 AM It was likely the deficit donation thingy that did not get passed, nobody else seemed to like it :(
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 20, 2011, 08:13:16 AM It was likely the deficit donation thingy that did not get passed, nobody else seemed to like it :( It did pass. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on November 20, 2011, 09:58:13 PM Quote The 90% Tax Act. 1. This act reaffirms the right of the region to set it's own taxes at whatever levels it feels best for it's own taxpayers. 2. No form of taxation, be it income, corporate, or sales, can add to, when federal taxes are considered, over 90%. Federal numbers are taken as base numbers with Regional numbers added to this. In the event that regional taxes would push this number over 90%, the regional tax is then capped so that the new total of regional and federal taxes totals 90%. 3. The Governor may propose a referendum for repeal of this act if he or she has sufficient reason to believe the Federal government is taking advantage of this act to, in some way, harm the Pacific region. Reintroducing this. I could have sworn it got enough signatures to get voted on but oh well....you need two, am I right? Yes, this is the bill that did not get passed. It requires two more signatures to move past the debate phase. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on November 22, 2011, 07:15:49 AM I wish to withdraw the 90% tax act and replace it with...
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on November 22, 2011, 07:23:48 AM Quote The Pacific Tax Cap and Income Cap Act (Section A) The Income Cap Sub-Act 1. The Pacific hearby imposes an Income Cap to be enforced though taxation. This states that anyone making more than the cap shall pay all income remaining, after taxes, to the pacific government. 2. This level is hereby set at $50,000,000. Any income over that amount will be paid in taxes to the pacific government. This shall be known as the Income Cap Tax. 3. The Income Cap Tax shall not be eligible for claims, refunds, or exemptions under federal taxes; should the taxpayer claim these, the region shall tad the proceeds of those claims. 4. For legal definition purposes, the Income Cap Tax shall be defined as a Surtax (Section B) The 90% Tax Sub-Act. 5. This act reaffirms the right of the region to set it's own taxes at whatever levels it feels best for it's own taxpayers. 6. No form of taxation, be it income, corporate, or sales, can add to, when federal taxes are considered, over 90%, with the exception of the Income Cap sub-act. Federal numbers are taken as base numbers with Regional numbers added to this. In the event that regional taxes would push this number over 90%, the regional tax is then capped so that the new total of regional and federal taxes totals 90%. 7. The Governor may propose a referendum for repeal of this act if he or she has sufficient reason to believe the Federal government is taking advantage of this act to, in some way, harm the Pacific region. 8. As a result of this change, the current income tax bracket of 49% for those making over $50,000,000 is repealed, as it is replaced with the Income Cap Tax. This should address the concerns of everybody, and eliminate the current situation we have where those making more than $50,000,000 are expected to pay 107% of their income in taxes, a situation that is clearly illegal. For information sake, the low bracket remains 11% of incomes below $300,000 and 16% on incomes above $300,000, with a full Surtax kicking in at incomes over $50,000,000 Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on November 22, 2011, 07:28:00 AM Note I'm willing to accept amendment of the amount of the income cap, but I'll only accept it as friendly if it's move upwards. The current real cap is $50,000,000 and I wont stand it for being lowered.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 05, 2011, 02:05:09 AM Overruled! :P:) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 06, 2011, 08:53:22 PM Casino Tax Bill
1. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, all profits earned from slot machines shall be subject to an additional 47% gambling tax. 2. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, all profits earned by casinos or businesses that generate a minimum of 40% of their revenue from gambling shall be subject to an additional 20% public damages tax. 3. Effective FY 2013, the gambling tax outlined in clause 1 shall increase to 70%. 4. Effective FY 2014, the gambling tax outlined in clause 1 shall increase to 95%. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 06, 2011, 09:02:46 PM Tobacco Public Health and Safety Bill
1. The Smoking Rights Amendment is hereby repealed. 2. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, the smoking of any substance within any public indoor space shall be prohibited, subject to a maximum fine of $5,000 per individual or a maximum fine of $100,000 for any business found to be in violation. 3. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, the smoking of any substance in any outdoor area that is within 12 feet of the entrance or exit to any public indoor location shall be prohibited, subject to a maximum fine of $1,000 per individual or a maximum fine of $30,000 for any business found to be in violation. 4. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, the smoking of any substance in any outdoor area where public or private employees are required to perform any tasks, including but not limited to serving food or beverages, cleaning, and maintenance, shall be prohibited, subject to a maximum fine of $1,000 per individual or a maximum fine of $30,000 for any business found to be in violation. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 06, 2011, 09:07:47 PM Handgun Phase Out Bill
1. Effective three months upon the passage of this act, the Pacific Region declares itself a handgun free area. 2. Handgun owners will have three months to give handguns to any local Handgun Amnesty Office without penalty. 3. Handgun owners cooperating with the amnesty will be eligible for a compensation of up to half of the average market price for all returned firearms. 4. Three months upon the passage of this act, possession of a handgun will be a crime eligible for up to a $5,000 fine and/or up to six months in prison. Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill 1. The Pacific Government will ensure that every resident over the age of 18 will be given a minimum income of $11,900 per year. 2. To apply for this minimum income, a resident over the age of 18 must be earning less than $11,900; a citizen earning less than the amount will be given the necessary sum to total an income of $11,900. 3. Residents who do not earn income, including welfare recipients, will be eligible for the full annual $11,900. Affirmative Action Abolition Repeal Bill 1. The Pacific Affirmative Action Abolition Act is hereby repealed. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 06, 2011, 09:12:44 PM The current real cap is $50,000,000 and I wont stand it for being lowered. How about $20 million? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 06, 2011, 09:37:35 PM Tobacco Marketing Regulation Bill
1. Effective FY 2012, any tobacco products to be sold within the Pacific Region must adhere to the following packaging standards: a. The brand name of the product in plain, black Times New Roman font against a white background, to take up the bottom 25% of the front of the packaging. b. The remainder of the front of the packaging, as well as the entirety of the sides and back, must contain health warnings illustrating the physical effects of prolonged tobacco use. 2. Effective three months upon the passage of this act, any publications distributed within the Pacific Region may not contain advertisements for tobacco products of any kind, with tobacco companies eligible for a minimum fine of $500,000 per violation. 3. Effective immediately, any distribution of leaflets or fliers produced by tobacco companies to be included inside tobacco packaging shall be prohibited, with tobacco companies eligible for a minimum fine of $100,000 per violation. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 07, 2011, 02:36:11 PM Great, we have some awesome bills to consider. :)
Tobacco Public Health and Safety Bill 1. The Smoking Rights Amendment is hereby repealed. 2. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, the smoking of any substance within any public indoor space shall be prohibited, subject to a maximum fine of $5,000 per individual or a maximum fine of $100,000 for any business found to be in violation. 3. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, the smoking of any substance in any outdoor area that is within 12 feet of the entrance or exit to any public indoor location shall be prohibited, subject to a maximum fine of $1,000 per individual or a maximum fine of $30,000 for any business found to be in violation. 4. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, the smoking of any substance in any outdoor area where public or private employees are required to perform any tasks, including but not limited to serving food or beverages, cleaning, and maintenance, shall be prohibited, subject to a maximum fine of $1,000 per individual or a maximum fine of $30,000 for any business found to be in violation. X Antonio V Handgun Phase Out Bill 1. Effective three months upon the passage of this act, the Pacific Region declares itself a handgun free area. 2. Handgun owners will have three months to give handguns to any local Handgun Amnesty Office without penalty. 3. Handgun owners cooperating with the amnesty will be eligible for a compensation of up to half of the average market price for all returned firearms. 4. Three months upon the passage of this act, possession of a handgun will be a crime eligible for up to a $5,000 fine and/or up to six months in prison. X Antonio V Quote Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill 1. The Pacific Government will ensure that every resident over the age of 18 will be given a minimum income of $11,900 per year. 2. To apply for this minimum income, a resident over the age of 18 must be earning less than $11,900; a citizen earning less than the amount will be given the necessary sum to total an income of $11,900. 3. Residents who do not earn income, including welfare recipients, will be eligible for the full annual $11,900. X Antonio V Tobacco Marketing Regulation Bill 1. Effective FY 2012, any tobacco products to be sold within the Pacific Region must adhere to the following packaging standards: a. The brand name of the product in plain, black Times New Roman font against a white background, to take up the bottom 25% of the front of the packaging. b. The remainder of the front of the packaging, as well as the entirety of the sides and back, must contain health warnings illustrating the physical effects of prolonged tobacco use. 2. Effective three months upon the passage of this act, any publications distributed within the Pacific Region may not contain advertisements for tobacco products of any kind, with tobacco companies eligible for a minimum fine of $500,000 per violation. 3. Effective immediately, any distribution of leaflets or fliers produced by tobacco companies to be included inside tobacco packaging shall be prohibited, with tobacco companies eligible for a minimum fine of $100,000 per violation. X Antonio V Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on December 07, 2011, 05:50:22 PM I sign all of the bills in the name of democracy.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Napoleon on December 09, 2011, 03:22:16 PM Yikes I might have to cancel my trip to the Pacific. :'(
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 10, 2011, 11:22:35 PM All of the above legislation requires one more signature to move into the voting phase.
Okay, so here is a dilemma. Apparently, the constitution states that the governor voting booth should be open on the second Friday this month, as opposed to the penultimate Friday (which is usually when we open the booth). Now, we can either immediately just start the election now, or we can postpone it to next weekend. What do you all think? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 10, 2011, 11:26:17 PM Casino Tax Bill 1. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, all profits earned from slot machines shall be subject to an additional 47% gambling tax. 2. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, all profits earned by casinos or businesses that generate a minimum of 40% of their revenue from gambling shall be subject to an additional 20% public damages tax. 3. Effective FY 2013, the gambling tax outlined in clause 1 shall increase to 70%. 4. Effective FY 2014, the gambling tax outlined in clause 1 shall increase to 95%. Won't this disproportionately tax poor and middle class gamblers or something? ;) :P Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 11, 2011, 06:14:29 AM Okay, so here is a dilemma. Apparently, the constitution states that the governor voting booth should be open on the second Friday this month, as opposed to the penultimate Friday (which is usually when we open the booth). Now, we can either immediately just start the election now, or we can postpone it to next weekend. What do you all think? As you like. If you fear to have a dreadful turnout, maybe let's wait until next weekend. But it's not like these are very competitive elections it seems... Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 11, 2011, 02:42:16 PM Okay, so here is a dilemma. Apparently, the constitution states that the governor voting booth should be open on the second Friday this month, as opposed to the penultimate Friday (which is usually when we open the booth). Now, we can either immediately just start the election now, or we can postpone it to next weekend. What do you all think? As you like. If you fear to have a dreadful turnout, maybe let's wait until next weekend. But it's not like these are very competitive elections it seems... Well, considering we have one candidate declared, I expect this to be very nailbiting. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 11, 2011, 08:19:21 PM Casino Tax Bill 1. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, all profits earned from slot machines shall be subject to an additional 47% gambling tax. 2. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, all profits earned by casinos or businesses that generate a minimum of 40% of their revenue from gambling shall be subject to an additional 20% public damages tax. 3. Effective FY 2013, the gambling tax outlined in clause 1 shall increase to 70%. 4. Effective FY 2014, the gambling tax outlined in clause 1 shall increase to 95%. Won't this disproportionately tax poor and middle class gamblers or something? ;) :P The taxes are applied directly to the businesses, not to the gamblers. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 11, 2011, 09:04:20 PM Casino Tax Bill 1. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, all profits earned from slot machines shall be subject to an additional 47% gambling tax. 2. Effective two months upon the passage of this act, all profits earned by casinos or businesses that generate a minimum of 40% of their revenue from gambling shall be subject to an additional 20% public damages tax. 3. Effective FY 2013, the gambling tax outlined in clause 1 shall increase to 70%. 4. Effective FY 2014, the gambling tax outlined in clause 1 shall increase to 95%. Won't this disproportionately tax poor and middle class gamblers or something? ;) :P The taxes are applied directly to the businesses, not to the gamblers. I'm just teasing. lol Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 22, 2011, 06:53:29 PM Where is everyone? ???
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on December 22, 2011, 08:00:27 PM Where is everyone? ??? I'm not sure, but if you want to sign my bills, then we can advance to a vote on them :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 23, 2011, 10:42:31 PM Where is everyone? ??? I'm not sure, but if you want to sign my bills, then we can advance to a vote on them :) X Fuzzy For all of ebowed's bills. ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 25, 2011, 07:08:05 AM We want a vote !
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 29, 2011, 06:10:16 AM Hum...
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 01, 2012, 04:10:52 PM Where is everyone?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 01, 2012, 04:23:06 PM Where is everyone? Probably on board one of the Seattle ferries, drunk and incapacitated in one of the storage holds after a long night of partying. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on January 01, 2012, 04:34:34 PM Well I've been drunk on tea and happy endings. :P
Meanwhile, the vote on all four bills are open: Tobacco Public Health and Safety Bill Handgun Phase Out Bill Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill Tobacco Marketing Regulation Bill Voting is open for one week. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Napoleon on January 01, 2012, 05:21:14 PM Scary stuff
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 01, 2012, 05:33:35 PM Tobacco Public Health and Safety Bill : Aye
Handgun Phase Out Bill : Aye Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill : Aye Tobacco Marketing Regulation Bill : Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 01, 2012, 09:07:01 PM Tobacco Public Health and Safety Bill : Nay
Handgun Phase Out Bill : Nay Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill : Aye Tobacco Marketing Regulation Bill : Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 01, 2012, 10:12:54 PM Tobacco Public Health and Safety Bill - Aye
Handgun Phase Out Bill - Aye Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill - Aye Tobacco Marketing Regulation Bill - Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 01, 2012, 11:31:27 PM Tobacco Public Health and Safety Bill - Aye
Handgun Phase Out Bill - Nay Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill - Aye Tobacco Marketing Regulation Bill - Aye Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 02, 2012, 01:34:56 AM Nay
Abstain Abstain Nay *hides from rest of the Pacific* Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 02, 2012, 11:01:04 PM *hides from rest of the Pacific* :( :( :( [gives hug of reassurance] Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 03, 2012, 01:45:16 AM *hides from rest of the Pacific* :( :( :( [gives hug of reassurance] Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 06, 2012, 09:01:04 PM So.......
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 07, 2012, 01:41:40 AM Still technically one day open for voting, however the results so far are as follows-
Tobacco Public Health and Safety Bill-3 ayes, 2 nays Handgun Phase Out Bill-2 ayes, 2 nays, 1 abstain Guaranteed Minimum Income Bill-4 ayes, 1 abstain Tobacco Marketing Regulation Bill-4 ayes, 1 nay All bills pass with the exception of the Handgun Phase Out Bill. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 08, 2012, 06:32:00 PM Where is everyone?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 08, 2012, 06:33:56 PM HI
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 08, 2012, 09:12:34 PM lol everybody's dead.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 09, 2012, 12:18:06 AM I think we need to go on a recruiting drive for our region. But how to do it?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 09, 2012, 07:34:58 AM I'm still alive.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 09, 2012, 02:06:43 PM I'm still alive. :D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 09, 2012, 02:15:30 PM Do we still have an income tax of 50% for people making $50,000,000+ a year?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 09, 2012, 07:44:04 PM 48.5 actually.
Edit: I signed all of the above bills into law with the exception of the Handgun Phase Out Bill, which failed to gain enough votes to pass, in case anyone wanted to know. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 09, 2012, 10:30:36 PM Cool. BTW I have a new bill to pass.
Quote Sane High Income Tax Act 1.) The regional income tax for pepole making $50,000,000 or more is now lowered from 48.5% to 20% I know this would be a big change, but with the current plan people making $50 mil.+ would have to pay 108.5%+ of their income towards taxes of some kind if you add it to the national income tax rate (60+48.5=108.5 lol). Extreamely wealthy Atlasians can't legally reside here with these rates, thus their tax dollars go elsewhere. My proposed tax rate would make it possible for these people to live in the region, and therefore assure a large bump in regional revenue. One last thing, a 20% income tax rate is pretty high for regional standards anyhow. :P Please don't kill me, fellow progressives. :( Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 10, 2012, 01:23:23 AM It's fine. Besides I am generally supportive of this legislation, but I would want to see what the others have to say.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 10, 2012, 02:22:08 AM Not that I am necessarily opposed to a maximum income cap (which the 45.5% rate (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Income_Tax_Increase_Act) effectively creates), but it is quite possible that a bracket of 20% on incomes exceeding $50 million would be lower than brackets beneath it. I am unable to find anything in the Pacific law code which would suggest what the next tax rate is, however, so perhaps the best solution would be to abolish present rates and start from scratch.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Napoleon on January 10, 2012, 02:47:48 AM The activity spark in this region created by Governor Jackson (Ebowed gets some credit too ;) )is exciting and impressive.
Witnessing success by new JCP Governors will hopefully serve as an asset in my bid for the same office. That being said, I will have some different policy priorities in the unique Northeast Region. Good luck Governor Jackson and keep up the good work. Senator Napoleon :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 10, 2012, 02:57:13 AM Not that I am necessarily opposed to a maximum income cap (which the 45.5% rate (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Income_Tax_Increase_Act) effectively creates), but it is quite possible that a bracket of 20% on incomes exceeding $50 million would be lower than brackets beneath it. I am unable to find anything in the Pacific law code which would suggest what the next tax rate is, however, so perhaps the best solution would be to abolish present rates and start from scratch. I'd be fine with that. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 10, 2012, 07:02:58 AM I can support reducing it to 30%, but not any lower and only if the lower brackets are reduced accordingly.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 10, 2012, 08:54:57 AM That is an acceptable compromise, except we apparently only have three tax brackets,
0-300,000 ( 0%) 300-50,000,000 ( 3%) 50,000,000 (48.5%) I think we should do a total re-write of the tax code if we are going to lower the tax rates on the wealthiest Pacificans. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 10, 2012, 02:01:35 PM Yeah, these tax brackets look pretty silly... How is it possible to go from 3% to 48 ? ???
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 10, 2012, 05:06:13 PM How about this?:
0-30,000 (0%) 30,000-100,000 (3%) 100,000-1,000,000 (5%) 1,000,000-10,000,000 (10%) 10,000,000-49,999,999 (15%) 50,000,000+ (30%) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 10, 2012, 08:34:39 PM Yeah, these tax brackets look pretty silly... How is it possible to go from 3% to 48 ? ??? The legislature never bothered to create a tax code, but passed laws creating a tax bracket on 50,000,000+ at 40%, and then raised that to 48.5 percent, and also raised taxes 3% on a previously uncreated tax bracket of 300,000+, thus causing the current dilemma. How about this?: 0-30,000 (0%) 30,000-100,000 (3%) 100,000-1,000,000 (5%) 1,000,000-10,000,000 (10%) 10,000,000-49,999,999 (15%) 50,000,000+ (30%) I think I can support these tax brackets, but I need to see if the rest of the legislature agrees first. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 10, 2012, 11:06:44 PM That looks good, I would prefer if the beginning threshold were increased to 50k and there was a lower rate from 30k-50k (like 1%), but it's not a deal breaker. (Mainly due to the existing federal income tax)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 11, 2012, 12:35:43 AM That looks good, I would prefer if the beginning threshold were increased to 50k and there was a lower rate from 30k-50k (like 1%), but it's not a deal breaker. (Mainly due to the existing federal income tax) Sure: 0-29,999 (0%) 30,000-49,999 (1%) 50,000-99,999 (3%) 100,000-999,999 (5%) 1,000,000-9,999,999 (10%) 10,000,000-49,999,999 (15%) 50,000,000+ (30%) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 11, 2012, 12:57:56 AM While we're on the subject of revenue, is there any support here to restrict and/or tax commercial gambling? ;)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 11, 2012, 06:57:57 AM That looks good, I would prefer if the beginning threshold were increased to 50k and there was a lower rate from 30k-50k (like 1%), but it's not a deal breaker. (Mainly due to the existing federal income tax) Sure: 0-29,999 (0%) 30,000-49,999 (1%) 50,000-99,999 (3%) 100,000-999,999 (5%) 1,000,000-9,999,999 (10%) 10,000,000-49,999,999 (15%) 50,000,000+ (30%) That seems pretty nice. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 11, 2012, 08:08:50 PM While we're on the subject of revenue, is there any support here to restrict and/or tax commercial gambling? ;) Maybe. Any particular ideas? ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 11, 2012, 11:04:29 PM I would be fine with taxing gambling, but not necessarily restricting it.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 11, 2012, 11:23:40 PM I would be fine with taxing gambling, but not necessarily restricting it. ^^^Me too. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 13, 2012, 10:49:51 PM Is someone going to draft a bill for the new tax law so I can sign it into law?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 14, 2012, 07:43:17 PM Income Tax Reform Bill
1. Effective FY 2013, all regional income taxes shall be abolished and replaced with the following brackets: a. 0% on all income earned from 0-29,999 b. 1% on all income earned from 30,000-49,999 c. 3% on all income earned from 50,000-99,999 d. 5% on all income earned from 100,000-999,999 e. 10% on all income earned from 1,000,000-9,999,999 f. 15% on all income earned from 10,000,000-49,999,999 g. 30% on all income earned past 49,999,999 Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 14, 2012, 11:09:07 PM Income Tax Reform Bill 1. Effective FY 2013, all regional income taxes shall be abolished and replaced with the following brackets: a. 0% on all income earned from 0-29,999 b. 1% on all income earned from 30,000-49,999 c. 3% on all income earned from 50,000-99,999 d. 5% on all income earned from 100,000-999,999 e. 10% on all income earned from 1,000,000-9,999,999 f. 15% on all income earned from 10,000,000-49,999,999 g. 30% on all income earned past 49,999,999 x Fuzzy Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 16, 2012, 08:34:52 PM Seeing as though everyone here has been killed off again, I declare myself king and head pimp of the Pacific Region.
ALL HAIL THE HONORABLE FUZZY!!!1!!1! Oh wait, since everyone is dead, no one can worship me. :( Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 17, 2012, 12:52:12 AM no don't
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 17, 2012, 01:08:23 AM I sign anything that needs a signature, like Ebowed's bill:
x bgwah ;D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: tmthforu94 on January 18, 2012, 03:55:14 PM Good catch on the Income Tax Bill - Should have written a story on it back in December to get you guys acting on it, only, I didn't know about it until I saw it in this thread. ;)
Jackson, expect some nice donations from wealthy Pacificans (???) coming your way, now that they can actually afford to make political donations. ;) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on January 19, 2012, 12:36:04 AM So is that income tax bill law already? I can't quite grasp the procedure of your assembly.
New highest effective income tax rate (regional and federal) under this bill is 72%, figuring in the federal deduction for regional taxes, in case anyone was wondering. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 19, 2012, 12:43:56 AM So is that income tax bill law already? I can't quite grasp the procedure of your assembly. New highest effective income tax rate (regional and federal) under this bill is 72%, figuring in the federal deduction for regional taxes, in case anyone was wondering. No, we need more signatures first, than we have a vote and so on. Thanks for the heads up on the net tax rate. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2012, 07:31:09 AM Income Tax Reform Bill 1. Effective FY 2013, all regional income taxes shall be abolished and replaced with the following brackets: a. 0% on all income earned from 0-29,999 b. 1% on all income earned from 30,000-49,999 c. 3% on all income earned from 50,000-99,999 d. 5% on all income earned from 100,000-999,999 e. 10% on all income earned from 1,000,000-9,999,999 f. 15% on all income earned from 10,000,000-49,999,999 g. 30% on all income earned past 49,999,999 x Fuzzy X Antonio V Edit : If possible, I'd like to retract my signature and offer an amendment. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2012, 07:32:01 AM New highest effective income tax rate (regional and federal) under this bill is 72%, figuring in the federal deduction for regional taxes, in case anyone was wondering. I'm pretty sure it's 90%, isn't it ? Highest federal rate is 60%. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 19, 2012, 07:37:45 AM Just gonna throw this out there in case there is support ....
Maximum Income Cap Bill 1. No business operating in any capacity within the Pacific Region may provide an annual income to any employee that is to exceed $70 million, including bonus benefits. I also believe that it is imperative, if we are to reform our income tax code, that we look at methods of increasing our revenue stream from areas such as the estate tax and the capital gains tax. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2012, 07:39:11 AM Just gonna throw this out there in case there is support .... Maximum Income Cap Bill 1. No business operating in any capacity within the Pacific Region may provide an annual income to any employee that is to exceed $70 million, including bonus benefits. Employees only ? Why don't we include shareholder's dividends too ? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 19, 2012, 07:44:29 AM Just gonna throw this out there in case there is support .... Maximum Income Cap Bill 1. No business operating in any capacity within the Pacific Region may provide an annual income to any employee that is to exceed $70 million, including bonus benefits. Employees only ? Why don't we include shareholder's dividends too ? Well I doubt any shareholder is making $70 million annually from these dividends, but I definitely think we need a steep capital gains tax, which I would be happy to address in a separate piece of legislation. The point of this one is to effectively establish a maximum income, which I personally feel is extremely generous and quite accommodating of the capitalist system with which we are required to work with. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on January 20, 2012, 01:03:15 PM New highest effective income tax rate (regional and federal) under this bill is 72%, figuring in the federal deduction for regional taxes, in case anyone was wondering. I'm pretty sure it's 90%, isn't it ? Highest federal rate is 60%. The federal tax code has a deduction for regional taxes. So, it's 60% of what's left after regional taxes have been paid. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 20, 2012, 01:35:16 PM New highest effective income tax rate (regional and federal) under this bill is 72%, figuring in the federal deduction for regional taxes, in case anyone was wondering. I'm pretty sure it's 90%, isn't it ? Highest federal rate is 60%. The federal tax code has a deduction for regional taxes. So, it's 60% of what's left after regional taxes have been paid. Well, in this case I actually think 30% is a bit low... I had signed the bill thinking this would result in a 90% effective rate, but 72% is too low to me. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 20, 2012, 04:53:05 PM Would you like to offer an amendment to raise the effective rate, Antonio?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 20, 2012, 05:20:03 PM If possible, I offer the following Amendment.
Income Tax Reform Bill 1. Effective FY 2013, all regional income taxes shall be abolished and replaced with the following brackets: a. 0% on all income earned from 0-29,999 b. 1% on all income earned from 30,000-49,999 c. 3% on all income earned from 50,000-99,999 d. 5% on all income earned from 100,000-999,999 e. 10% on all income earned from 1,000,000-9,999,999 f. 15% on all income earned from 10,000,000-49,999,999 g. 30% on all income earned from 50,000,000-99,999,999 h. 50% on all income earned past 99,999,999 Changes in bold. This way, the highest effective rate is 80%. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 20, 2012, 07:26:15 PM I support this amendment and wish to modify my proposal to incorporate it.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 21, 2012, 10:12:29 AM Income Tax Reform Bill
1. Effective FY 2013, all regional income taxes shall be abolished and replaced with the following brackets: a. 0% on all income earned from 0-29,999 b. 1% on all income earned from 30,000-49,999 c. 3% on all income earned from 50,000-99,999 d. 5% on all income earned from 100,000-999,999 e. 10% on all income earned from 1,000,000-9,999,999 f. 15% on all income earned from 10,000,000-49,999,999 g. 30% on all income earned from 50,000,000-99,999,999 h. 50% on all income earned past 99,999,999 ------------------------------------------------------- Here is the new bill. Does anyone have any further comments/concerns on the proposed legislation? Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on January 21, 2012, 08:43:21 PM New highest effective income tax rate (regional and federal) under this bill is 72%, figuring in the federal deduction for regional taxes, in case anyone was wondering. I'm pretty sure it's 90%, isn't it ? Highest federal rate is 60%. The federal tax code has a deduction for regional taxes. So, it's 60% of what's left after regional taxes have been paid. Well, in this case I actually think 30% is a bit low... I had signed the bill thinking this would result in a 90% effective rate, but 72% is too low to me. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 22, 2012, 07:06:39 AM New highest effective income tax rate (regional and federal) under this bill is 72%, figuring in the federal deduction for regional taxes, in case anyone was wondering. I'm pretty sure it's 90%, isn't it ? Highest federal rate is 60%. The federal tax code has a deduction for regional taxes. So, it's 60% of what's left after regional taxes have been paid. Well, in this case I actually think 30% is a bit low... I had signed the bill thinking this would result in a 90% effective rate, but 72% is too low to me. Payroll taxes aren't income taxes. ;) And I doubt they represent a big burden for people who make more than 50,000,000 a year. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on January 22, 2012, 11:48:57 AM Under a 50% regional tax rate, plus federal income tax and taxes under the CSSRA, it's easily approaching 100% if not going over. Considering all the other deductions and exemptions in the federal tax code it might end up anywhere from 85-95%.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 24, 2012, 02:17:17 PM Under a 50% regional tax rate, plus federal income tax and taxes under the CSSRA, it's easily approaching 100% if not going over. Considering all the other deductions and exemptions in the federal tax code it might end up anywhere from 85-95%. No, because the payroll tax comes before the income tax and the income it taxes isn't taken into account into the income tax. It's certainly not aproaching 100% and probably is even lower than 90%. And anyways, if you make 100,000,000 a year you're probably not making all your money through salary. Capital gains (not subject to payroll taxation) probably make up for the bulk of it. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 25, 2012, 03:26:35 AM Some ideas I've got:
- Banning slot machines. - Casino tax. - Prohibition of drive-through liquor sales. (Also, liquor sales at gas stations) - Classifying refusal to accept unemployed applicants as a form of illegal discrimination. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 25, 2012, 04:52:47 AM Can we put the tax bill on vote or do people need to sign it again ?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 25, 2012, 05:01:46 PM I think it would be okay for you to vote on the legislation, as no particular length of time was specified for debate when the bill was put forward.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 26, 2012, 05:53:19 PM Income Tax Reform Bill 1. Effective FY 2013, all regional income taxes shall be abolished and replaced with the following brackets: a. 0% on all income earned from 0-29,999 b. 1% on all income earned from 30,000-49,999 c. 3% on all income earned from 50,000-99,999 d. 5% on all income earned from 100,000-999,999 e. 10% on all income earned from 1,000,000-9,999,999 f. 15% on all income earned from 10,000,000-49,999,999 g. 30% on all income earned from 50,000,000-99,999,999 h. 50% on all income earned past 99,999,999 I call for a vote on this bill. :D Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: NVGonzalez on January 26, 2012, 07:19:31 PM In that case I vote yay! :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: bgwah on January 26, 2012, 07:25:39 PM If voting is indeed open, I vote aye.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 26, 2012, 07:27:16 PM Aye!
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 26, 2012, 07:44:24 PM Voting is open for a week, btw.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Alcon on January 26, 2012, 08:18:13 PM aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: LastVoter on January 26, 2012, 10:37:48 PM aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on January 27, 2012, 03:09:35 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 27, 2012, 04:31:29 AM Aye
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Sbane on January 27, 2012, 03:43:54 PM Income Tax Reform Bill 1. Effective FY 2013, all regional income taxes shall be abolished and replaced with the following brackets: a. 0% on all income earned from 0-29,999 b. 1% on all income earned from 30,000-49,999 c. 3% on all income earned from 50,000-99,999 d. 5% on all income earned from 100,000-999,999 e. 10% on all income earned from 1,000,000-9,999,999 f. 15% on all income earned from 10,000,000-49,999,999 g. 30% on all income earned from 50,000,000-99,999,999 h. 50% on all income earned past 99,999,999 Sorry for commenting so late but that last bracket is completely unacceptable. It makes no sense if your goal is to get more money from the richers. A 50% tax rate would mean a 110% tax rate on those making $100 million or above. Even accounting for tax breaks I doubt it would get below 100%, or much below it. So basically we are motivating them to move to another region or country to make their money and we lose out on all of their tax receipts. That is just dumb, and as someone who wants more tax receipts to help the poor in our region I must oppose it. Nay! Edit: I see with deductions the tax rate actually drops to 80%, if that has been calculated correctly. It makes it more tolerable but a 40% top rate would be preferable. My vote remains the same. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: CultureKing on January 28, 2012, 03:32:13 PM Aye!
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Seattle on January 28, 2012, 05:56:39 PM Aye!
Although sbane brings up a valid point. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on January 31, 2012, 08:03:34 PM If no one else is going to vote on this legislation, I call the vote closed. Bill passes 9-1.
Floor is now open to new legislation. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 01, 2012, 04:28:12 PM Good. :)
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on February 23, 2012, 09:39:49 PM lol it's almost been a month.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: LastVoter on March 17, 2012, 10:00:53 PM Can anyone vote here?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on March 17, 2012, 10:15:16 PM Can anyone vote here? Any Pacific citizen can. :) Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on March 18, 2012, 02:25:22 AM I'm probably going to introduce some legislation related either to zoning or mass-transit sometime over the next week, just as a heads-up.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: LastVoter on April 16, 2012, 10:43:02 PM Well can we see some legislature?
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Jackson on May 14, 2012, 01:04:54 AM Here's some legislation.
Inactive Pacific Citizen Purge Act. Any citizen from the Pacific who does not post within the Pacific Legislature for a period not less than six months shall be stricken from the voter rolls. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Ebowed on May 14, 2012, 02:05:46 AM Here's some legislation. Inactive Pacific Citizen Purge Act. Any citizen from the Pacific who does not post within the Pacific Legislature for a period not less than six months shall be stricken from the voter rolls. As voter registration is a federally handled issue, this proposal would need to be worded to specifically refer to only prohibited participation in the Pacific legislature - though, were I seeking to increase activity, I would not be inclined to begin purging voters from the rolls. Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 16, 2012, 04:22:39 AM I'm still alive, FTR.
Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Spamage on September 23, 2012, 03:39:39 PM Considering that this thread hasn't been used in more than 120 days and that no one voted for the elected Legislature I will be proposing bills for voting ion this area. I encourage you to make your opinions known and certainly to vote. Gov. Spamage Title: Re: Pacific Legislature Official Thread Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 11, 2012, 11:43:51 PM Greetings, Governor Spamage and the Pacific Legislature. I had difficulty finding an appropriate place to address this issue to you all, so I have chosen to do so here.
The South has recently passed a bill to lobby Dave Leip to create a board for our own region, where we may engage in our own business without confusion and lost threads. I encourage you to consider joining us in our quest for a doctrine of one region, one board. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Emperor PiT. |