Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 24, 2020, 11:39:01 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (Primary) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Northeast Assembly Thread (search mode)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 22 Print
Author Topic: Northeast Assembly Thread  (Read 329277 times)
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #100 on: October 30, 2009, 04:18:56 pm »

Dear Mr. President

I hereby resigning the office of Northeast Representative, with immediate effect

Sincerely,
Kalwejt

Sorry to hear that.

Shouldn't we be putting the bill on the floor to a vote?  It's been 48 hours and there are no proposed unfriendly amendments.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #101 on: November 02, 2009, 12:55:39 am »

This bill is way premature.  

Nay
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #102 on: November 03, 2009, 05:15:42 pm »

With two Ayes, and one Nay, and one abstention, this Bill has passed. I present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.



I urge the governor to veto this bill and allow Mr. Moderate and the others who didn't the chance to vote.

Should the Veto Override Amendment be next on the agenda?
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #103 on: November 03, 2009, 07:29:13 pm »

Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, and must veto legislation which he does not support, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The Question is shall the Bill be considered?

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative ciync, has the floor.


Thank you, Mr. Lt. Governor. 

I yield to the original sponsor of this Amendment, Former (and current) Rep. Mr. Moderate.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #104 on: November 04, 2009, 03:10:36 pm »

Two comments:

1) If the Seats Amendment passes, the size of this legislature will be set at 6.  Assuming everyone initially votes on a bill and the Lt. Governor isn't needed to break a tie, the vote could go 4-2.  That's both a majority AND a 2/3rds majority.  Thus, under the proposed amendment, a veto could be overridden by a mere majority of members in a legislature of 6 (or less than 5, for that matter).  At a minimum, I think we should change "by a two-thirds majority vote" to "by more than a two-thirds majority vote".

2) Given our recent issues with Representatives actually showing up to vote, what happens if less than everyone, say, only 4 members vote on an override?  Should a 3-1 vote be sufficient to override a veto?  Or should we be saying something like:

If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a vote of more than two-thirds of its members, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

That I'm not as adamant about - but would like to hear other Representatives' point of view.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #105 on: November 05, 2009, 01:05:09 am »

Nay
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #106 on: November 05, 2009, 02:24:45 pm »

I'm offering this amendment:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

This is almost the same, but didn't take into account the "turnout" objection, which I consider to make sense. Could I ask Rep Cinyc which version he prefers ?

Well, I've tried to open this up for discussion because I'm largely agnostic about it.  On the one hand, I'd like to force all members to vote on everything - especially a veto override.  On the other hand, I realize that's not always realistic.

The best way to deal with it might be to add "more than" to the constitutional language and create a quorum requirement in the SOAP (or the Constitution, if necessary)- for ALL bills.  There should NEVER be a bill that passes without a vote of less than half our members.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #107 on: November 05, 2009, 11:49:58 pm »

So the revised bill should read as follows (new langage in purple:

Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, and must veto legislation which he does not support, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The Question is shall the Bill be considered?

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative ciync, has the floor.

[/quote]
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #108 on: November 06, 2009, 02:36:43 pm »

Would that mean a 42 override vote would go to the Lt. Governor for tie breaking?

I don't think the Lt. Governor should have any role in overrides, to be honest.  He's a member of the executive branch that vetoed the bill in the first place.

Should we put that proposal to a vote?
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #109 on: November 07, 2009, 05:31:06 pm »
« Edited: November 07, 2009, 05:34:59 pm by cinyc »

I'll take Hamilton's amendment as friendly.  The full bill as amended (with the newer additions in purple):

Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, and must veto legislation which he does not support, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.  An override vote resulting in an exactly two-thirds majority shall be considered a tie for this purpose, to be broken by vote of the Lieutenant Governor.
-------------------
I think this is ready to proceed to a final vote.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #110 on: November 07, 2009, 08:33:14 pm »

Aye
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #111 on: November 08, 2009, 08:12:36 pm »

Why don't we let Antonio explain the bill first?

I have serious concerns about the last paragraph.  Not everyone who votes is going to be able to meaningfully participate on the Atlas Fantasy Elections boards.  There aren't enough elective seats - nor should they be.  Citizens shouldn't be penalized for being passive. 
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #112 on: November 10, 2009, 01:47:54 am »
« Edited: November 10, 2009, 02:09:34 am by cinyc »

Thank you, Antonio.

I reiterate my concern about the last paragraph of your bill.  Not everyone who votes is going to be able to meaningfully participate on the Atlas Fantasy Elections boards.   How are we to differentiate between the non-participating posters and zombies?  Someone named Torie - one of the most respected posters on the Atlas Forum - a zombie because he hadn't posted the Altas Fantasy Elections forums recently.  That makes no sense, and the last paragraph seems over-inclusive.

As to the second-to-last paragraph, I've recruited nobody, and have no way of knowing whether someone who votes for me is a zombie.  The last election wasn't competitive, so zombies weren't an issue.  The upcoming December elections may be more competitive.  If I decide to run for reelection and somehow win, how am I supposed to know if I should resign - especially when we're using PR-STV voting, and I may be some light-posting constituent's third or fourth choice?
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #113 on: November 11, 2009, 01:29:47 am »

Nay on the amendment. 

I can't vote for an Amendment I have issues with, even if it's an improvement over the final bill.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #114 on: November 11, 2009, 08:54:02 pm »

I think it's too late to offer amendments under the SOAP.  Should we not proceed to a final vote on the bill, as amended?
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #115 on: November 11, 2009, 10:08:46 pm »

Excuse me, but no. I proposed this amendment as soon as the vote was closed on the previous one. I motion to suspend SOAP and vote on it. There is no reason that I should have to interrupt on-going votes to introduce amendments that won't be voted on until after anyways.

The reasons the SOAP rules are what they are is so that we don't get bogged down on any one piece of legislation with constant amendments to it - especially since we generally only debate one bill at a time. All amendments should be proposed within the 48-hour debate period.   There's no reason why your proposed amendment couldn't have been.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #116 on: November 11, 2009, 11:28:04 pm »

Then this is a problem with the SOAP that needs addressed. Many amendments are the result of other amendments passing, such as this one.

Nothing prohibits you from offering an amendment conditioned on the passing of another or working with the person proposing an amendment to get your language added.

Time is of the essence here.  I doubt we're going to get through half of the proposed legislation queue this session.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #117 on: November 13, 2009, 04:00:23 am »

Nay
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #118 on: November 14, 2009, 04:12:50 pm »

I have no problem allowing for a vote of the people on Constitutional Amendments more frequently - either with the Assembly elections or once a month - or even lowering the ratification standards a bit.  I do have a problem with Constitutional Amendments becoming law without a vote of the people.  The Constitution ought not to be changed without a vote of the people.  If the proposed amendment passes, the Assembly could in theory cut the people out by passing an amendment removing the ability for the people to protest.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #119 on: November 16, 2009, 01:29:43 am »

Nay, in its present form.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #120 on: November 17, 2009, 08:46:20 pm »
« Edited: November 17, 2009, 08:49:30 pm by cinyc »

I am strongly in favour of this Bill.

As far as I'm aware, the Atlasian Constitution is silent regarding the right to bear arms? Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong?

False.  The First Amendment to the Second Atlasian Constitution  states "The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms has always been in it; the First Amendment amended Article VI, Section 4 to add the low-potency explosives part.

This bill is arguably unconstitutional under that provision, which, lacking a preamble mentioning a well-regulated militia,  is even more explicit than the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.  I'll have to look to see if any similar federal or regional law is on the books.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #121 on: November 17, 2009, 09:25:35 pm »
« Edited: November 18, 2009, 12:00:50 am by cinyc »

I've found 3 laws on gun ownership, 2 federal and 1 in the Northeast (subject to the usual
caveat that NE bills passed 2007 and later aren't in the wiki).

Let's discuss the Northeastern law first, the Northeast Concealed Carry Act.  It allows our citizens to get a 5-year license to conceal carry firearms if they pay a fee.  The only citizens to which this license will be denied are persons convicted of violent crimes or robbery - and they get their rights back if they stay out of trouble for 5 years, get a job, marry someone with a job, or grow old enough.  There's no exception for persons with mental illness.

Under the federal Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, everyone but a convicted felon that a court has independently punished by removing his right to bear arms could theoretically own a gun under federal law.  And under the Expansion of Gun Rights Act, everyone but minors, convicted felons whose rights a court has taken away, and "anyone who is insane" can conceal carry in DC and the federal territories without a permit.

So under the proposed law, it would be illegal to sell a gun to people who otherwise might have the right to conceal and/or bear arms under Northeastern and federal law - at a minimum, those convicted of non-violent crimes, non-violent felons whose rights have been taken away by a court, and persons with mental illness.

The wiki doesn't say whether the constitutionality of these laws has been challenged.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #122 on: November 19, 2009, 04:43:19 am »

I think what the bill is asking is perfectly reasonable. It's not as though they are being restricted in anyway, but providing photo I.D. is a reasonable safety precaution. There's nothing in this bill about making them unavailable to anyone other than the criminal or the insane. Identification presentation is one way to help prevent them from falling into those hands.

My main problem with the bill even is amended as how it deals with criminals and especially the insane.  Owning a gun is a right in Atlasia, and no one's rights should be taken away without due process.  The bill's blanket prohibition on selling guns to convicted felons doesn't comport with current federal or Northeastern law (why should a white collar criminal be unable to hunt for life after serving his time?),  "confirmed mental illness" isn't defined, and a judicial determination of "confirmed mental illness" (whatever that is - remember - in the old days, that would have meant being homosexual)  isn't necessary, as I read the bill.  Would a soldier returning from the recent battle in New Mexico who seeks treatment for PTSD be swept up in the language?  Possibly - and he shouldn't be, absent a judicial determination that he is insane.  And the law shouldn't stop potential gun owners from seeking help for mental illness, nor should it allow a psychiatrist alone to determine when we should be taking constitutional rights away from people.

I haven't had time to mark up an amendment, though may tomorrow if we're willing to wait for it.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #123 on: November 19, 2009, 07:36:04 pm »
« Edited: November 19, 2009, 07:44:23 pm by cinyc »

Let me try to put language to a proposed amendment:

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005
.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly selling firearms to any individuals with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

Or, without the strikethroughs:
1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,885


« Reply #124 on: November 19, 2009, 07:43:30 pm »

A few points on my proposed amendment:

1) The original bill never stated what level of crime selling guns to felons or those with confirmed mental illness would be.  I've chosen misdemeanor, but we should discuss whether it should be something lower (a violation) or higher (some sort of felony).
2) I added a knowing requirement because, quite frankly, I don't think we or the feds keep a database for sellers to check.  This bill doesn't fund or create any such database.
3) I've tried to draft the amendment to track current current Northeast and federal law so that it passes constitutional muster.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 22 Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC