Northeast Assembly Thread

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Aye

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

So, as of right now, there's no drinking age at all?

Nope.

Unless the Northeast legislated this in a session before my time, that isn't on the wiki.

[tpfkaw]

So, as of right now, there's no drinking age at all?

Nope.

Unless the Northeast legislated this in a session before my time, that isn't on the wiki.

Okay, then.

Nay.

There's no minimum drinking age in China or Portugal - somehow their societies continue to function.

[Free Palestine]

Okay, then.

Nay.

There's no minimum drinking age in China or Portugal - somehow their societies continue to function.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

The amendment fails.

Ayes: 1
Nays: 2

Debate will continue until November 22nd, 10:20 PM, unless extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

[tpfkaw]

Wait, that was the amendment?

I suppose I'll be voting the same way on the actual bill.

[tpfkaw]

Motion to end debate and enter voting procedure.

(Since Morgan, Dallas, and I are all here).

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Seconded.

[Free Palestine]

Thirded

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I support this motion.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

We are now voting on the Northeast Regional Drinking Policy. Representatives have twenty four hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[tpfkaw]

Nay.

There's no minimum drinking age in China or Portugal - somehow their societies continue to function.

[Verily]

Aye.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Nay.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I don't believe this is a perfect Bill, but it does do something positive, so...

Aye.

[Free Palestine]

Nay.

There's no minimum drinking age in China or Portugal - somehow their societies continue to function.

[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.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Apologies for my tardiness.



The bill fails.

Ayes: 2
Nays: 3

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

We shall move on to the next piece of legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. Wormyguy

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate will continue until atleast November 26th, 6:08 PM unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Wormyguy, has the floor.

[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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I would like to ask the Gentlemen, what's the point of a Federated state if we don't trust the Federal government to do anything?

Obviously, if a Federal Act, whether by Executive Order or legislation is deemed unconstitutional, then obviously we would not be bound to it. So I take from this you are asking the Assembly, to make a call on the constitutionality of such an Act, which may leave this region vulnerable to abuse from ideological thugs, of any political persuasion?

While I know the Gentleman clearly has strong feelings on the role of Government, I must know what did Government do to you to have so little faith in your fellow Atlasians?

I believe if a Region considers an Act of the Federal Government to be unconstitutional they have every opportunity to have that judgement made, unless you don't trust the judiciary either.

I would support a Bill which allows the region to not enforce a national law whose constitutionality is being challenged, but this Bill strikes me as completely unnecessary and respectfully, verging on the paranoid. We have a Federation for a reason, be vigilant, sure, but this view is nonconstructive and potentially dangerous.

I have few problems with your second issue, but I would need to have some clearer picture of what the actual impact would be on the country's military position overall.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I approve of the resolution, but I don't want this to come down to a 3-2, considering it's importance - I'm going to strive for more unanimity.

It seems like there is some room for agreement, if I'm not mistaken - I strongly encourage Wormy and Polnut to work something out to the point where they can both vote Aye, and if needed, I'm willing to play a part.

The only real question I have:

How would we deem it "unconstitutional?" Would that go to the discretion of the Chief Judicial Officer?

Also, since it's a holiday, I suggest we extend debate for a day or two.

[Free Palestine]

I fully support this legislation.

[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.

[Rowan]

So who is the judge of what is constitutional, you?