Northeast Assembly Thread

[tpfkaw]

Good man!  I sent a PM to Dallas imploring him to change his vote - if that doesn't work, I suppose it's in the governor's hands.

Would be a shame if the first act of the first assembly outright controlled by radical libertarians is an assault on personal liberty.

[tpfkaw]

Thank you, speaker.

To explain the three parts of the resolution:

The main resolution:

We are lucky to live in a nation with a constitution that strictly delineates and limits the powers of the federal government, unlike the totalitarian regimes of the past and present, in which there is no such limits on the federal government.  However, it is not merely enough to simply pretend that the constitution is inviolable and a perfect shield against overreach by the government of Atlasia.  The regional assemblies must use their constitutionally-guaranteed powers under Article 4, Sections 1§4 and 2§2, and which is not denied to them under Article 1, section 7, and which is protected by Article 1, Section 6§7.  You may note that this is a resolution, not a law - this is because it is merely an assertion of a power we already possess.

Furthermore, to expect the federal government to keep itself within constitutional boundaries is to ask the inmates to run the asylum, or (to use a favorite example of liberals) to ask private businesses to self-regulate pollution.  The regional assemblies must be ever-vigilant guards to defend the people against unconstitutional acts of the federal government.  After all, an unconstitutional act is by definition illegitimate and illegal (and therefore a criminal use of force against our citizenry), so it is not only our right but our duty to prevent its enforcement in our region.

The second part:

The federal government has, in the last 100 years, taken over full control of our regional militia and National Guard.  This is an unconstitutional usurpation of power from our governor, as nowhere in the constitution is the federal government granted control over regional forces.  While it is within the rights of the Governor to authorize that our armed forces be placed under federal command, they cannot be legitimately be given orders from the federal government without the Governor's consent.

The third part:

My justification for this one is simple:  If we are to adopt the rest of this resolution, it would be hypocritical to deny our subservient governmental entities the same powers we are asserting for ourselves.

I yield to debate.

[tpfkaw]

To Polnut:

Do I trust the federal courts?  No, of course not.  Do you think that every decision that the federal courts are making now, have made in the past, and will make in the future is constitutionally sound?  If your answer to any of those questions is "no," then we are in agreement.  Considering how frequently precedent is overturned, one would have to be schizophrenic to believe every decision made by the courts is constitutionally sound - indeed, the reason why I included "ruling" in the list of nullification powers we are asserting.

National Guard soldiers presently form a large portion (though not nearly the majority) of those fighting in the current Middle Eastern "overseas contingency operations."  As our governor favors an aggressive foreign policy, passing the second part of the resolution is at present unlikely to have a significant effect on foreign policy.

To Dallasfan:

The sponsor of a nullification act would list the legal justifications (i.e. it violates Article X, Section Y) for declaring an act unconstitutional, and then the assembly would vote on it like a normal bill.

[tpfkaw]

The assembly, and the governor.

[tpfkaw]

Okay, a motion to close debate and end voting procedure (a majority of us are here right now, and I think everyone knows how they will vote).

If that fails, motion to extend debate by another day.

[tpfkaw]

Okay, I'll second that.

[tpfkaw]

I would like to point out that what I am proposing is hardly unprecedented.

[If I may use "real world" examples]:

Similar resolutions to the first part of mine have recently been passed and signed by the governor in Alabama, Alaska, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming, have passed both houses of the state legislature in Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia.

State laws nullifying the REAL ID national identification system have recently been passed, signed by the governor, and enacted into law in Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Pennsylvania.  Resolutions indicating opposition to the REAL ID national identification system have recently been passed and signed by the governor in Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Alabama.

State laws nullifying federal marijuana penalties for medical users have recently been passed, signed by the governor, and enacted into law in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Illinois and Maryland.

State laws nullifying federal gun laws have recently been passed, signed by the governor, and enacted into law in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Kansas and Virginia.

State laws nullifying the "individual mandate" portion of the recent healthcare bill have been passed, signed by the governor, and enacted into law in Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.

A state law prohibiting the federal government from regulating purely intrastate commerce has passed one house in Virginia.

States by how many nullification-themed acts and resolutions have passed at least one house of their state legislature:

[tpfkaw]

As for Polnut's changes, I would be happy to pass those in addition to this resolution, but not instead of.

(I might point out that what he's proposing is technically stronger than what I am, since he is proposing a binding law whereas I am only proposing a resolution).

[tpfkaw]

Any more debate is a waste of time.  We all know how we're going to vote.

(Actually, we don't know how Verily will vote, but he hasn't participated in this debate).

I motion to end debate and enter voting procedure.

[tpfkaw]

Aye.

[tpfkaw]

Nay.

[tpfkaw]

It doesn't pass - there are only two aye votes.

In any case:

This act would provide zero benefit and be ruinous towards our local business.  Providing yet another way for unaccountable "planning boards" to arbitrarily deny approval to investments in housing development (a tactic historically, and often even today used to discriminate against minority small-business owners), based on poorly-worded, vague, and bizarre regulations such as one demanding "increased car parking capacity" (which is to be provided at the developer's expense) will only serve to significantly increase housing prices and scare investment out of the state due to regulatory uncertainty.  Furthermore, this act is absurd in its geographical scope.  Even the tiny, extremely rural hamlet of New Ashford, Massachusetts would be subject to it, being within 20 miles of the also small and rural city of Pittsfield.  I'd want to know what a bicycle path to the nearest train station to New Ashford would look like!  Furthermore, if people wanted their apartments to have "adequate" access to sources of public transportation, they would be willing to seek out and pay more for developments with such "adequate" access.  If it is in fact the case that they are not doing so, then it is clear there is no popular demand for what the honorable representative is suggesting, and it is merely a fixation of his own personal agenda.

[tpfkaw]

Well, I'd just like to say that everyone likes chocolate, so we should have free chocolate.  Since we also are getting free toothbrushes, there won't be any tooth decay from the chocolate either.  I therefore see no reason at all to vote against this bill.

I yield my time to the speaker.

[tpfkaw]

If you opposed it, and you wanted more dialogue, then write something opposing it yourself.

[tpfkaw]

Okay, I would like to table my bill at the speaker's discretion.

[tpfkaw]

I demand that our motto be Herp Derp, not Hurr Durr.

Herp Derp uber alles!

[tpfkaw]

Actually we should rename the Northeast the "Land of the Kennedys."

The Governor will be named John F. Kennedy
The Lt. Governor will be named Robert F. Kennedy
The CJO will be named Edward M. Kennedy
Representatives will be referred to as "[Insert user name here] Kennedy"
The Northeast Senator shall be named Joe Kennedy Jr.
The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly (or whatever position Dallasfan65 holds in the future) shall be named Master of the Kennedys. His motto shall be: One Kennedy to rule them all, One Kennedy to find them, One Kennedy to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."





Just kidding

Maybe all the lefties could be Kennedy, and all the righties Cabot Lodge.

[tpfkaw]

Aye.

[tpfkaw]

And it therefore passes unanimously, and veto-proof.

[tpfkaw]

I would love to explain the reasoning behind my latest bill.

It's simple, really.  I think everyone can agree that one of the primary functions of government is to prevent theft.  Theft can be person-to-person: for example, a mugger or a pickpocket, but it can also be government-to-person, as in a dictatorship where the tax money is all spent on palaces or fighter jets.  Taxation in such a case isn't a legitimate function of government - it's theft.

Now, this bill is a very trusting one.  It trusts that any use of our tax money by the Senate is legitimate merely because they say it is.  I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that we will never become such a banana republic.  But one thing we can know is that unrequested tax money certainly is not legitimate.  If the Federal Government doesn't even need the money in the first place, it is most certainly theft.  It is our duty to protect our citizens from theft.

Note that there need not be any de facto change at all.  The senate must merely pass a resolution requesting our tax money - the minimum that decency must allow, and the president must sign it.  That's not an onerous requirement, and it binds us to behave as normal.  Remember that our founders initially envisioned that the Federal Government would fund itself (when user fees, tariffs, and land sales were not sufficient) by asking each state to provide a certain amount of funds, and then the state would choose how to raise those funds.

RowanBrandon - I may remind you that you are a member of the Regional Protection Party.  Disregarding your party's radical origins, this is a perfect example of what regional protection is all about.  We are saying that the federal government cannot use our tax dollars illegitimately - that they must acknowledge that it is a give-and-take social contract, rather than something they are entitled to.  That's the least standard of decency I think our region should expect.

[tpfkaw]

AYE.

[tpfkaw]

And Verily is no longer an NE representative.

[tpfkaw]

I am reintroducing the THEFT PREVENTION ACT OF 2010, and tabling my previous bill.

At speaker's discretion, I would like an IMMEDIATE VOTE, as it has already been debated.

(Han says he'll sign it if it passes).

[tpfkaw]

Aye

[tpfkaw]

Aye

... I have not yet brought the bill back to the floor yet - I will be doing so shortly, after I check with the SOAP.

Can you please do so post haste?

We need to do this while you're still in the assembly.