Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 17, 2017, 10:02:19 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderator: Gustaf)
| | |-+  Bono vs. ?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Bono vs. ?  (Read 1721 times)
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11729
United Kingdom


View Profile
« on: February 05, 2005, 09:57:25 am »
Ignore

I contend that nowhere in the powers ammendment that determines the actions permited to the senate is that body given the authority to appropriate money to programs of the like of those for which money was appropriated under The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill. Therefore, as the money I paid in my taxes is being used for unconstitutional purposes, I ask that The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill be declared unconstitutional and without effect.
Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken

NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2005, 10:17:26 am »
Ignore

Bono asked me to look at the Constitutional powers of the Senate as well, and having done so I agree that nowhere in the Constitution is the Atlasian Senate given powers to create such a bill.

I support Bono in this case.
Logged

The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9394


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2005, 01:29:22 pm »
Ignore

yeah, but neither of you think the government has a spending power under the real Constitution.
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2005, 01:35:00 pm »
Ignore

yeah, but neither of you think the government has a spending power under the real Constitution.

Sure it does. The Constitution, both Atlasia's and the US's, enumerates the things Congress(Senate only in this case) can make laws, which include spending money, about.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2005, 01:57:01 pm by S.E. Magistrate John Dibble »Logged

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33752
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2005, 01:58:39 pm »
Ignore

I'm presuming that the version here is the version that passed.  What follows is my opinion

Sections 1 and 3  would be constitutional under a broad interpretation of section 1 clause 16 of the Powers amendment.  Whether clause 16 can be interpreted that broadly is something the Court will need to decide.  A broad interpretation of section 1 clause 9 of the Powers amendment would help support the constututionality of section 1 of the Act, but would not be enough by itself,

Section 2 is clearly constitutional under section 1 clause 14 of the Powers amendment, insofar as it related to the treatment of infectious disease.  It would require a overly broad intrepretation of that clause to extend that clause to other forms of health care assistanc, especially given the explit narrow scope of clause 14.

Section 4 is constitutional to the extent that sections 1, 2, and 3 are found to be constitutional.

As written, section 5 is unconstitutional.  If it were limited in scope, child care assistance could be constitutional, but I don't see anything that makes a generic child care subsidy constitutional

Section 6 is clearly constitutional under section 1 clause 15 of the Powers amendment.
Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch
He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2005, 02:31:32 pm »
Ignore

Since I may be a Supreme Court Justice soon, I shall not discuss this any further, as I may be involved in this case directly, until the trial starts.

I assure those concerned that I will not let my personal feelings about this bill get in the way of my job, which is simply to interpret the Constitution and to determine whether the law in question is a violation of it or not.
Logged

Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11729
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2005, 02:40:53 pm »
Ignore

I'm presuming that the version here is the version that passed.  What follows is my opinion

Sections 1 and 3  would be constitutional under a broad interpretation of section 1 clause 16 of the Powers amendment.  Whether clause 16 can be interpreted that broadly is something the Court will need to decide.  A broad interpretation of section 1 clause 9 of the Powers amendment would help support the constututionality of section 1 of the Act, but would not be enough by itself,

Section 2 is clearly constitutional under section 1 clause 14 of the Powers amendment, insofar as it related to the treatment of infectious disease.  It would require a overly broad intrepretation of that clause to extend that clause to other forms of health care assistanc, especially given the explit narrow scope of clause 14.

Section 4 is constitutional to the extent that sections 1, 2, and 3 are found to be constitutional.

As written, section 5 is unconstitutional.  If it were limited in scope, child care assistance could be constitutional, but I don't see anything that makes a generic child care subsidy constitutional

Section 6 is clearly constitutional under section 1 clause 15 of the Powers amendment.

Obviously, I'll save my arguments for the trial.
Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken

NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2005, 02:05:59 am »
Ignore

Well, then while we are at it, let's eliminate social security (or any idea to privatize it), government grants to attend private universities and a whole litany of other programs as well.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2005, 02:08:25 am »
Ignore

And, at this point, I would like to add that the final version of the bill is acctually located on page one.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15608.0
Logged

Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11729
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2005, 08:46:54 am »
Ignore

When are we going to have the trial, anyways?
Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken

NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6097


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2005, 01:15:04 pm »
Ignore

When are we going to have the trial, anyways?

There is a queue for the Supreme Court you know Wink

Once the Senate pulls its finger out and actually holds a vote we should (hopefully) get a new Justice to make up for Liberty's extending absence and therefore we will have at least a majority of the Court to hear cases. It then depends how long it takes the NixonNow case to get considered and ruled upon.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11729
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2005, 03:43:43 pm »
Ignore

When are we going to have the trial, anyways?

There is a queue for the Supreme Court you know Wink

Once the Senate pulls its finger out and actually holds a vote we should (hopefully) get a new Justice to make up for Liberty's extending absence and therefore we will have at least a majority of the Court to hear cases. It then depends how long it takes the NixonNow case to get considered and ruled upon.

The NixonNow case was filled after this one.
Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken

NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11729
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2005, 03:44:38 pm »
Ignore

When are we going to have the trial, anyways?

There is a queue for the Supreme Court you know Wink

Once the Senate pulls its finger out and actually holds a vote we should (hopefully) get a new Justice to make up for Liberty's extending absence and therefore we will have at least a majority of the Court to hear cases. It then depends how long it takes the NixonNow case to get considered and ruled upon.

The NixonNow case was filled after this one.

Nevermind, I thought you meant andrew vs. NixonNow.
Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken

NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
Generally Useless
texasgurl24
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10340
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2005, 04:12:53 pm »
Ignore

Bump.
As soon as i'm sworn in i'll start working on this.
Logged

Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6097


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2005, 05:13:02 pm »
Ignore

Bump.
As soon as i'm sworn in i'll start working on this.

There is one case ahead in the queue unless the Court wishes to take the cases out of order.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8517
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2005, 05:22:20 pm »
Ignore

Bump.
As soon as i'm sworn in i'll start working on this.

There is one case ahead in the queue unless the Court wishes to take the cases out of order.

Once Texasgurl is all set, we will begin with the NixonNow vs. StevenNick case.
Logged

Something nice said about me:

He isn't a total joke and a communist sympathizer. You'd be lucky to get 10% anywhere outside of DC. I don't even know that you could win DC. It would be awfully close in any event.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines