Northeast Assembly Thread

[tpfkaw]

The assembly, and the governor.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Just a notice:

Seeing as how I'll be in the confines of a diner from 8 AM to 9 PM tomorrow, I won't be able to close the vote at the appropriate time, unless one wants to extend debate.

[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.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

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.

I would prefer to extend it to November 27th, 10:00 PM.

[tpfkaw]

Okay, I'll second that.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I would prefer extension, so thirded.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I understand the ideological concern about this, I would be happy to consider a middle-ground Bill here.

For example

In the event that a Federal Law's constitutionality is being challenged, the Northeast Region will not be obliged to enact said law until its status has been determined by a Constitutionally recognised judicial authority.

Any deployment of Regional Military forces must be approved by first, the Governor, as Commander-in-Chief of those forces, followed by a majority vote in the Assembly

This Bill could be the beginning of the end of an independent Judiciary, it is not our job, as legislators to make calls on matters of Constitutionality, not the least of which I have grave concerns of the viability of any law, which could be challenged by ANY majority within the Assembly who simply disagree and interpret the Constitution in a form of group-think.

I'm fully prepared to discuss where there is common-ground, but if the Representative is not prepared even discuss those elements, then, Mr Speaker, unanimity on this Bill will be impossible.  

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I like the revisions - especially the latter, since it provides a check on the Governor.

Wormy?

[Rowan]

The assembly, and the governor.

How absurd. So any bill you simply don't like by the federal government you can deem it "unconstitutional" and not follow it? Why don't you just secede while you're at?

[Free Palestine]

Why don't you just secede while you're at?

[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).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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).

Actually, the wording of my alternative includes "not obliged" - there is no automatic enactment, only in the event that the Assembly decides it is - in that circumstance that a constitutionally provided judicial authority is determining the Law's constitutionality.

[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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If the Gentleman feels there is no more room to move on this, then I'll second his motion.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Thirded - and, apologies for my tardiness, I only just walked in the door.



We shall now hold a vote on the Nullification Resolution. Representatives have twenty-four hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[tpfkaw]

Aye.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[Free Palestine]

/e/

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Nay

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

The Resolution passes.

Ayes: 3
Nays: 1

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

We shall now move on to the next piece of legislation - also, I must apologize to the Assembly: I was having Internet problems last night and I was only able to go on Google - no other webpage would load, nor would AIM.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. Polnut

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate will continue until atleast December 1st, 11:39 PM unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Polnut, has the floor.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Thank you Mr Speaker,

In major metropolitan areas public transport is often the primary means of transport, and most who use it, while often out of necessity, consider it a good thing, that benefits the environment and costs less than daily running of a car.

Where that issue becomes more difficult is when people due to the lifestyle or the cost of living in the inner suburbs buy into developments on the urban fringes.

Very often these are built with no concern for the availability of public transport infrastructure, believing that as the population grows, the demand will be created, and it will come... so it's more a case if you come, they will build it.

Many who live in these areas complain that little thought to has been given to a thorough public transport plan. This is often shown by the placement of new developments adjacent to an interstate and presumes a dependence on the car. 

What this Bill proposes is that a plan for public transport infrastructure is required for new developments (within the legislated parameters), in order for them to be approved.

The Bill lists options for developers to include, depending on location and other particulars of the development.

The Bill will encourage greater availability to public transport, in areas where it is critically needed, this is not something that 'external forces' will necessarily bring about on their own, we can lead on this matter.

The costs of this to the Region are minimal, and will be part of the normal planning approvals processes.

I'm happy to take any questions.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

We shall now hold a vote on the Public Transport Integration Bill. Representatives have 24 hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Aye