SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Law'd)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Not too sure how criminal law works in Atlasia. Does this amendment address Marokai's suggestions?


A suggestion... your thoughts, Marokai?:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't quite know how to work the impeachment stuff into the wording. So if anyone wants to take a better go at it, be my guest.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Noted. Is it too late for me to edit my post and remove my calling it "an amendment"?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

My apologies. I saw the initial message, meant to reply, and then totally forgot.

An Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

This Senate is voting to make law the removal of the most basic form of Atlasian participation for those who, for whatever reason, are unavailable to appear before a committee.

Wrong. The bill comes with a loophole that will allow legitimate absences to go unpunished. I anticipate that the senate will be flexible in determining whether or not to charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress. We just need an enforcement mechanism to make sure people are doing their jobs. Moreover, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether or not a voting ban is warranted.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

This Senate is voting to make law the removal of the most basic form of Atlasian participation for those who, for whatever reason, are unavailable to appear before a committee.

Wrong. The bill comes with a loophole that will allow legitimate absences to go unpunished. I anticipate that the senate will be flexible in determining whether or not to charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress. We just need an enforcement mechanism to make sure people are doing their jobs. Moreover, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether or not a voting ban is warranted.

Where is the enforcement mechanism to make sure you do your job?

That question would be better directed to Senator wormyguy.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3 makes it clear that the case will be brought in front of the Supreme Court.

Section 2 dictates that anyone who commits the crime of contempt of Congress shall be sentenced to a voting ban of up to six months. Naturally, the Court decides whether or not it finds a person guilty of “committing” said crime.

The ban on office-holding does not go through the Court. I wrote it that way on purpose, and no one made a specific objection to that point. It's similar to the process of expelling a senator, but we needed a timeframe because many of the people who appear before committees are appointees.

Wormyguy wasn't disenfranchised.

He also didn’t have the luxury of defending himself in front of the Supreme Court.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I didn't cite it because I don't think it's relevant to your point. The committee decides whether or not it will charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress based on whether or not the committee believes that the Atlasian has a valid excuse for failing to testify. By implication, the bill suggests that contempt of Congress is only committed when there is no good excuse for being absent.

This question of legitimacy would therefore be factored into the Supreme Court's decision.

I disagree with a lot of your points, but a lot of them are minor things we could have changed earlier. I like that you've gotten involved in the senate in the past... why didn't you bring these up earlier when we could have dealt with them?