Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[MaxQue]

UAE is illegal under the original LGBT trade law, because it applies death penalty to homosexuals.

[Purple State]

UAE is illegal under the original LGBT trade law, because it applies death penalty to homosexuals.

Well it would be legal, but the SoEA likely would (and certainly should) immediately suspend it until they reformed those practices. I have to say I wouldn't support that sort of bill anyway (not that I will likely have a chance to vote on it).

[HappyWarrior]

I also feel that a Taiwanese FTA would drastically harm relations with the PRC.

[afleitch]

I also feel that a Taiwanese FTA would drastically harm relations with the PRC.

Quite; it's a diplomatic nightmare

[DownWithTheLeft]

I urge all senators to oppose the massive intrusion of freedom in the bill Sen. Fritz's has just proposed.  Atlasia has a long history of party switching and waiting 60 days in between party switching is absurd

[MaxQue]

I urge all senators to oppose the massive intrusion of freedom in the bill Sen. Fritz's has just proposed.  Atlasia has a long history of party switching and waiting 60 days in between party switching is absurd

For a very rare time in my life, I completely agree with DWTL. That bill is a threat to democracy by deleting the freedom to be a member of the political party we want.

[tmthforu94]

I urge all senators to oppose the massive intrusion of freedom in the bill Sen. Fritz's has just proposed.  Atlasia has a long history of party switching and waiting 60 days in between party switching is absurd

For a very rare time in my life, I completely agree with DWTL. That bill is a threat to democracy by deleting the freedom to be a member of the political party we want.

I agree with DWTL and Senator Maxque. While it isn't great to be constantly switching parties, I don't see any good reason why it should be outlawed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I agree with the sentiment of the bill. But I think 60 days is way too much. I'd be fine with only changing parties once a week or something.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I agree with the sentiment of the bill. But I think 60 days is way too much. I'd be fine with only changing parties once a week or something.

Yes, akin to a "mail-in" voter registration change delay. Real life you can't just type something on the internet and change parties. A week is the longest though, I'd prefer three days.

[Fritz]

Agreed, sixty days is too long.  I will accept an amendment shortening the period of time as friendly, when this gets to the floor.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A better idea would be to allow parties to regulate their own membership.

[Lief 🗽]

Putting the time down to 1-2 weeks is good, I think.

[Associate Justice PiT]

A better idea would be to allow parties to regulate their own membership.

     Also, such a bill would be permitted under Article V, Section 1, Clause 8. As far as I know, there is no Constitutional justification for the Senate having the power to regulate how often a citizen may change parties.

[Alexander Hamilton]

A better idea would be to allow parties to regulate their own membership.

No. Parties want members. Parties would only want to regulate when members are able to leave.

[Хahar 🤔]

A better idea would be to allow parties to regulate their own membership.

No. Parties want members. Parties would only want to regulate when members are able to leave.

Let the parties decide whether they want members. Not all parties are like yours, see.

[HappyWarrior]

I think that tmth's legislation is a regional matter rather than a national one.

[Franzl]

The legislation regarding motorcycles is awfully draconian.

[Rowan]

The legislation regarding motorcycles is awfully draconian.

That was my problem with it.

[tmthforu94]

The legislation regarding motorcycles is awfully draconian.

How so? Actually, the punishments for violating Section A are slightly lower than America's, I believe.

[Rowan]

Is number 1 of Franzl's bill really necessary? Can't we just have 2 and 3?

[Franzl]

Is number 1 of Franzl's bill really necessary? Can't we just have 2 and 3?

I don't mind.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Former Senator PiT and myself have worked together to produce this bill...

Party Self-Regulation Bill

1. Any organized political party shall have the power to include in its bylaws descriptions of actions taken by party members that may lead to their expulsion from the party.

2. If any member of an organized political party acts in violation of any bylaw enacted in accordance with section 1 of this act, the chairman of that party must, within 7 days, publically notify the Secretary of Forum Affairs of this fact, who will then officially remove the member in question from that party's membership. The member in question will automatically become an independent.

3. The chairman of an organized political party may also propose a motion to expel any registered member from that party. The motion shall then be voted on in a manner specified by the party bylaws. Should the motion succeed, the party chairman must, within 7 days, notify the Secretary of Forum Affairs of this fact, who will then officially remove the member in question from that party's membership. The member in question will automatically become an independent.

4. If the expelled member chooses to do so, they may seek mediation in the form of a third party agreed upon by the member in question and the party chairman. The mediator shall listen to both parties' cases. If the mediator rules in favor of the expelled member, the member shall be permitted back into the party immediately.

5. After a period of 60 days, if the party chairman wishes to remove the ban on an expelled member, they shall publically lift the ban. The party bylaws may be amended to include a method by which the membership of the party may negate this decision.

Well this certainly won't be challenged in court.

(In fact I might do it myself, should it pass.)

[Franzl]

I also believe the bill to be unconstitutional.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I also believe the bill to be unconstitutional.

     What parts of it are not justifiable under Article V, Section 1, Clause 8?

[Purple State]

At a certain point people will realize that regulating political parties in Atlasia is simply unconstitutional under the current power structure.

If anything, a comprehensive constitutional amendment would be necessary to effect the sort of change many want in political parties, but it is doubtful that such a thing could pass without a compelling impetus.

I also believe the bill to be unconstitutional.

     What parts of it are not justifiable under Article V, Section 1, Clause 8?

That clause gives the Senate the ability to determine benefits given to organized political parties (as in, you could say that only organized political parties could be on ballots if we were to change to a system of election by party lists). However, it does not indicate that the private actions of party membership falls under the purview of the government.