SENATE BILL: Environmental Conservation and Protection Act (Failed)

[Napoleon]

I'd be more discouraged knowing that conservation efforts could be easily overturned by an extreme right wing puppet administration just four months later but maybe that is just my opinion. Or, more likely, it is something that was tried in my region in this game and in my state in real life. This isn't the type of issue we should leave up to political chance.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on final passage of the Environmental Conservation and Protection Act:

Aye (5): Antonio V, bgwah, Fuzzybigfoot, Napoleon, and Snowguy716
Nay (5): AHDuke99, Jbrase, NC Yankee, officepark, and Shua
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

With seven days having expired, the vote is presently tied, and the President of the Senate is called upon to break the tie.

[Bacon King]

Nay.

I approve of the spirit of this law, but I have doubts as to this bill's constitutionality; Junkie's concerns echo my own.

I searched around the internet for information about the potential constitutionality of this bill, focusing on US Federal involvement in state and local parks to serve as a comparison for this situation. Fortunately, it appears this bill isn't even really necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's almost exactly what this bill aimed to do, and along with the rest of US federal statute it was grandfathered into Atlasian law.

As a bit of background, the LWCF is a fund that collects money from offshore drilling fees and motorboat fuel taxes and gives grants to states and local governments to purchase/develop park land and such. Virtually every state and local park in the United States today was partially funded by this program and thus falls under the restrictions quoted above.

So, learning this made my vote a lot easier. Problem solved!

[tmthforu94]

Good decision, Mr. VP.

[Napoleon]

Actually it is fairly clear that my bill has essentially nothing in common with your findings at all. It is almost as if a do-as-little-as-possible administration is what you're going for.

[Junkie]

I have to say very good decision Mr. VP.

[Bacon King]

Actually it is fairly clear that my bill has essentially nothing in common with your findings at all. It is almost as if a do-as-little-as-possible administration is what you're going for.

How? It's a federal law that requires cabinet-level approval for states and municipalities to close/sell/rezone/etc. virtually any environmentally protected area in the country. Is that not exactly what this bill would have done?    

[bgwah]

What's the worst that could happen if this were to pass? The Supreme Court would have something to do?

[Napoleon]

Actually it is fairly clear that my bill has essentially nothing in common with your findings at all. It is almost as if a do-as-little-as-possible administration is what you're going for.

How? It's a federal law that requires cabinet-level approval for states and municipalities to close/sell/rezone/etc. virtually any environmentally protected area in the country. Is that not exactly what this bill would have done?  

No. Not at all. The bill is distinctively meant for conservation and protection, as the title shows us. It isn't a recreation Parks bill. Also, it adds quite a bit more than cabinet approval.