Legislation Introduction Thread

[Emsworth]

1A Senator
1B Senator
2A Senator
2B Senator
3A Senator
3B Senator
4A Senator
4B Senator
5A Senator
5B Senator

I would like to note that starting with the next election, we won't have a 1A Senator, a 1B Senator, etc. Instead, we will have 5 District Senators and 5 Regional Senators.

Might I suggest that we instead order Senators by seniority? The President pro Tempore would be the most senior Senator. The others would be ranked by length of service. If length of service is tied, then the tie would be broken by the order in which the oath of office was taken.

[Emsworth]

It would make sense for this commission to discuss not only the means of voting, but also secret vs. public balloting.

Also, I would note that the PPT has considerable latitude in which Senators to appoint: he may appoint any Senators. However, the President seems to have no choice in which members of the Cabinet to appoint. As a matter of principle, since the Presidency's powers seems to have already been so restricted, I would suggest that the President be permitted to choose any two members of the executive branch (including himself, if he pleases, just as the PPT may do).

[Emsworth]

I dont think it would hurt to add a few Governors in there to rep. the regions, Master.

Good idea, MAS.

[Emsworth]

I dont think it would hurt to add a few Governors in there to rep. the regions, Master.

Er, why would we include the regions in a reform that only affects things at the federal level?

I don't think it's just a matter of which level this affects. The voting system is an integral component of the Atlasian political structure, and I think that it would not hurt to have a wide range of interests represented on the commission. (For instance, the Chief Justice would be a member, even though the reform is political, not judicial.)

[Emsworth]

I also should add that since this affects the President and people external to the Senate, shouldn't this be a bill, instead of just a resolution?

Yes; it would require the President's signature to become law.

[Emsworth]

I figured that it was mandating a temporary measure that would probably precede an actual bill (i.e. to change the system).  If you'd prefer it was a bill, that would be ok though.

I was under the impression that the Senate could set up internal committees (that is, committees comprised entirely of Senators) on its own, but that the creation of other agencies required a law.

However, I doubt that anyone would actually challenge the commission; it doesn't really matter whether its a bill or a resolution as far as I am concerned.

[Emsworth]

Although I did not notice it when the Puerto Rico Statehood Act was passed, I do notice it now. I might be mistaken, but I have looked, and cannot find a provision authorizing the Senate to admit new states. The only clause I did find was this:

"In the event that a new State joins the United States of America, the Senate may apportion this State to a Region and a District via proper legislation."

To me the meaning of this clause is clear. If a state joins the U.S. in real life, it automatically becomes a part of Atlasia, and the Senate determines the region and district which it is to join. The Senate itself cannot, as far as I can tell, admit states on its own.

It's quite possible that I am wrong, but neither Article I nor Article IV contradicts this analysis.

[Emsworth]

Emsworth Statement: It doesn't say the Senate can't admit states though.

The Senate is a body of enumerated powers. It does not, in my view, have the authority to admit states unless the power is specifically granted. Furthermore, the inclusion of the clause I pointed out above seems to rule out the possibility of the Senate admitting states on its own. Instead, that clause appears to indicate that new states join Atlasia only if they do so in real life as well.

[Emsworth]

I'm very sorry to this, but I am compelled to do so by the rules.

Pursuant to Article 3, Section 1, Clause 4, I declare that the Unification of Canada and Atlasia Bill is unconstitutional. I find as follows:

1. The Constitution does not in any way, explicitly or implicitly, grant the Senate the power to admit new states to the Union. Instead, it only provides as follows:

"In the event that a new State joins the United States of America, the Senate may apportion this State to a Region and a District via proper legislation."

This Clause clearly suggests that if a state is admitted to the real United States, then it is also admitted automatically to the fantasy Republic. The Senate's only role is to determine the region and district to which the new state belongs. There is no authority to create or admit new states; the Senate, being one of enumerated powers only, cannot constitutionally pass this act.

2. The Constitution does not anywhere grant the Senate the power to create a new region. Therefore, by attempting to create a Region of Canada, the bill violates the Constitution.

Therefore, pursuant to the rules, I find this bill unconstitutional, and with great regret, remove it from the Senate floor. The sponsor may challenge my ruling in twenty-four hours; the challenge requires the approval of one-third of the Senate to override my ruling.

[Emsworth]

Incidentally, this ruling also covers the Pacifican Statehood Act, which is also removed from the Senate floor for reason #1.

[Emsworth]

Finally, I wish you would have said something before...

I was not particularly accustomed to looking for technicalities. That, unfortunately, is a part of my job now.

[Emsworth]

Emsworth, I am sorry to say this, but it is not your job to decide the Constitutionality of laws. IIRC that is only the job of the Supreme Court of Atlasia. Both statehood acts should be able to come up as legislation and be voted upon by the Senate. If their constitutionality is challenged by an Atlasia then the court will decide it's Constitutionality but this is not your power. It is only the courts power. Thus I official protest your striking of the Pacifican Statehood Act and the Unification of Canada and Atlasia Act from the list of items to be debated and voted upon in the Senate. Unless their is a specific clause that allows you not unilaterally decide the Constitutionality of acts of the Senate then I would suggest that you do not strike these bills.

Protest noted.

As Sam Spade points out, there is indeed a clause of the OSPR that permits me to remove the bill from the Senate floor. I would never have presumed to take such an action if such a clause did not exist. I actually gave my argument on the constitutionality of the bill first, before making a ruling, to see if there would be any counter-argument. If there was any opposition, then I would not have used the power, and would have left it up to the Senate. However, my argument was not refuted or challenged (except for one post, which I addressed); thus, I felt justified.

I am not aware if the power to declare a bill unconstitutional has been used before. However, Senator Gabu has indeed used the power to declare motions and amendments frivolous, and has struck them from the agenda of the Senate.

I'm sorry if this seems heavy-handed, though.

[Emsworth]

The protest will still remain official since I do not believe that it is frivolously unconstitutional...

I don't think that it needs to be frivolous in order for the power to be exercisable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is any doubt about whether the bill is constitutional or not, then I would agree with you. If a bill is directly, plainly, and evidently unconstitutional, however, I would have to demur.

[Emsworth]

I don't care how you use your power I just like objecting to things.

So do I! I know that I've probably been irritating a few Senators with my nitpicking on legislation.

[Emsworth]

Marijuana Criminalization Act

Section I
The Marijauana Legalization and Taxation act is hereby repealed.

Section II
Regions shall be given the right to decide the status of Marijuana legaliziation in their state.

I believe that this bill is redundant. Section II, as others have noted, is already a part of the Marijuana Legalization and Taxation Act. No marijuana tax has yet been imposed; thus, this bill does not actually affect anything.

Therefore, I would respectfully request Senator Cosmo Kramer to withdraw it from the floor.

I am definitely not inclined to declare it frivolous and remove it from the Senate floor on my own. As a general note (not on this bill in particular): Frivolity is a more subjective standard than unconstitutionality. Thus, I don't think that I would act in such a case unless actually requested to do so by the senators.

[Emsworth]

(This is not a ruling, but my personal view.)

I feel that this bill is unconstitutional. The Senate only has the power to "determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Senate elections." There is no constitutional authority, as far as I can see, for the Senate to set qualifications for Senate candidates. This bill's restriction of the right of the People to elect whomever they please to the Senate, therefore, seems unconstitutional.

So, I would suggest introducing it as a constitutional amendment if you wish.

[Emsworth]

I am aware of that Mr. Vice President, and it is a valid point. I feel that this does determine the form of a Senate election by stating you get four months. The only qualification is, you could argue, is that it disqualifies a Senator after serving Atlasia for 16 months. I think that point is that this is Constitutional because it gives the Senate the power to determine regulations for a Senate election.

With respect, Senator, I do not agree with this line of reasoning. By the same token, the Senate could set a qualification under which members of the Atlasian Monster Raving Loony Party are disqualified, justifying it under regulating the "form of Senate elections."

My view is that the Constitution permits the Senate to determine procedural matters relating to Senate elections, but it may not disqualify candidates from running.

[Emsworth]

I'm afraid that this bill will have to be revised considerably; it cannot simply be lifted from real life. For one thing, there is no "United States Code" in Atlasia; although U.S. statutes have been "inherited," there is no code as such. Secondly, the bill is not in very clear language (note part (b), for example). Instead of the circumlocutous wording of the bill, I would suggest simple. For example, "the size of the Army is increased by X." And thirdly, and finally, the bill should include an estimate of financial implications for budget purposes.

I would hope that all of these issues can be addressed before the bill reaches the floor of the Senate.

[Emsworth]

I'm introducing this on behalf of Emsworth:

Pledge of Allegiance Act of 2005

§ 1.  The words "under God" shall cease to form a part of the pledge of allegiance of Atlasia.  The new pledge of allegiance shall read as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Atlasia, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Questions and comments may be directed in his direction.

I always thought it was "under Dave" not "under God".

All the party platforms appear to assume that it's "under God." Also, there hasn't been any specific law changing "under God" to "under Dave." That's why I, too, assumed that "under God" is a part of the pledge.

[Emsworth]

I'm introducing this on behalf of Emsworth:

Pledge of Allegiance Act of 2005

§ 1.  The words "under God" shall cease to form a part of the pledge of allegiance of Atlasia.  The new pledge of allegiance shall read as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Atlasia, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Questions and comments may be directed in his direction.

I don't like this one.  This liberal mentality that assumes we can fix this pledge "issue" by removing "under God" is silly.  Why do we need a nationalist pledge at all?

I was not under the impression that the Senate would agree to the abolition of the pledge. If it is, however, that's fine as well.

[Emsworth]

It's just one of those things that sets me off.  It comes across as so bent on "seperation of church and state" that it looks almost anti-religious, not neutral.

Yes, I take your point about how it comes across. Of course, it's not anti-religious; that would be adding "under no God" to the pledge, for example.

[Emsworth]

Of course, I'm aware, and I don't think your intentions are malicious.  But, and I was referring more to those who want the Plede altered in general, it seems that the fact that this pledge is blatant nationalism is no cause for concern, only getting a reference to God removed.

(Of course, the Pledge was altered to include the reference to God in the 1950s... I simply don't support changing it back because of what that would stand for.  I'm much more worried about forcing people to pledge allegiance to a country than to a God.  One who opposes "Under God" in the interest of Atheists should, if he is intellectually consistent, oppose the whole pledge in the interest of Jehovah's Witnesses.)

The inclusion of the phrase "under God" is an explicit acknowledgement of a Supreme Being, and is therefore IMHO unconstitutional. The pledge as a whole, however, is not unconstitutional. So that's why I suggested the bill in its current form.

[Emsworth]

Thank you, Sen. Wixted.

Section 1
Whenever an Act which repealed a former Act is repealed, said
former Act shall not thereby be revived, unless expressly so provided.

This is basically copied from the U.S. Code. It's a general principle of law to avoid confusion and controversy.

[Emsworth]

I request the President pro tempore's consent to bring the Unified Electoral Code Bill to the floor of the Senate ahead of schedule. Otherwise, it would not be passed by the time elections are held. And, as this merely consolidates and corrects existing law, we need not wait until the Commission on Voting System Reform reports; that, I imagine, will take quite some time.

[Emsworth]

It should be fine as a resolution; it will only be binding internally. (In other words, the Senate would be able to just waive this procedural resolution if necessary.)

But, I would disagree that we have too many commission bills; in fact, there is only one on the Senate floor now, and it appears likely to fail.