Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 25, 2019, 04:56:10 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
| | |-+  Bono vs. ?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Bono vs. ?  (Read 1747 times)
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,711
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 05, 2005, 09:57:25 am »

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
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,771
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2005, 10:17:26 am »

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: 9,361


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2005, 01:29:22 pm »

yeah, but neither of you think the government has a spending power under the real Constitution.
Logged
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,771
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2005, 01:35:00 pm »

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: 36,418
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2005, 01:58:39 pm »

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
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,771
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2005, 02:31:32 pm »

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: 11,711
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2005, 02:40:53 pm »

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
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,659
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2005, 02:05:59 am »

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: 20,659
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2005, 02:08:25 am »

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

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15608.0
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,711
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2005, 08:46:54 am »

When are we going to have the trial, anyways?
Logged
Peter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,038


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2005, 01:15:04 pm »

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
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,711
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2005, 03:43:43 pm »

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
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,711
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 07, 2005, 03:44:38 pm »

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
NYGurl
texasgurl24
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,774
Japan


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2005, 04:12:53 pm »

Bump.
As soon as i'm sworn in i'll start working on this.
Logged
Peter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,038


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2005, 05:13:02 pm »

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
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,473
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2005, 05:22:20 pm »

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
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines