Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

     This was intended to give them the benefit of being able to regulate their own membership, including channels through which they could do so. If you think it would be better, it could just be written to give the party a general right to do so, that they could write into their bylaws in whatever form they want.

[Хahar 🤔]

Doesn't require legislation, IMO, just a declaration by the SoFA.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Doesn't require legislation, IMO, just a declaration by the SoFA.

     I actually spoke to Earl on this matter once some time ago, & he said that he wanted to see legislation saying that parties could do that first.

[Хahar 🤔]

In that case, just pass legislation granting parties the right to regulate their membership, without terms attached. Nothing else is needed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yeah, that's probably a good idea.

[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.

     This was intended to give them the benefit of being able to regulate their own membership, including channels through which they could do so. If you think it would be better, it could just be written to give the party a general right to do so, that they could write into their bylaws in whatever form they want.

That would be the best course, especially because the current legislation is in direct contradiction of the DA bylaws. A law affirming the general right of parties to remove members by whatever means agreed upon in their bylaws, noting that the SoFA may be notified of such action, and that the person removed shall then be automatically registered as an unaffiliated independent would be appropriate.

[Хahar 🤔]

How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.

[Associate Justice PiT]

How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.

     I like that bill.

[Хahar 🤔]

How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.

     I like that bill.

Generally, simple is good.

[tmthforu94]

How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.

I'd be more than happy to modify it to that.

[Purple State]

How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.

I'd be more than happy to modify it to that.

It can't be simply that or you aren't doing anything.

First, it needs to include the words, "except where specifically denied by the Constitution or in statute."

Also, you should make clear that if a party removes a member, it shall be permitted to inform the SoFA to remove that member from it's list, as well as indicating that said individual shall thene be registered as an independent until they indicate otherwise.

[Rowan]

Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

[Purple State]

Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

Why? The point is that the government has almost no role in party regulation. All this legislation can do is formalize avenues that parties may choose to use. For example, it has never been clear what power parties have to remove members. They can do it, but does the SoFA have to do anything? And can the person sign back up to the party?

The bill gives parties discretion and simply provides directive to the SoFA, which is exactly what it should do.

[Rowan]

Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

Why? The point is that the government has almost no role in party regulation. All this legislation can do is formalize avenues that parties may choose to use. For example, it has never been clear what power parties have to remove members. They can do it, but does the SoFA have to do anything? And can the person sign back up to the party?

The bill gives parties discretion and simply provides directive to the SoFA, which is exactly what it should do.

Question, do American political parties have the power to remove members?

[tmthforu94]

Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

Why? The point is that the government has almost no role in party regulation. All this legislation can do is formalize avenues that parties may choose to use. For example, it has never been clear what power parties have to remove members. They can do it, but does the SoFA have to do anything? And can the person sign back up to the party?

The bill gives parties discretion and simply provides directive to the SoFA, which is exactly what it should do.

Question, do American political parties have the power to remove members?

Question: Do American parties only have a couple dozen members, in which over half of it's members are extremely active in the government, and where a high % of members actually hold some sort of office?

[Purple State]

Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

Why? The point is that the government has almost no role in party regulation. All this legislation can do is formalize avenues that parties may choose to use. For example, it has never been clear what power parties have to remove members. They can do it, but does the SoFA have to do anything? And can the person sign back up to the party?

The bill gives parties discretion and simply provides directive to the SoFA, which is exactly what it should do.

Question, do American political parties have the power to remove members?

I believe they do, although it is obviously not a commonly used ability and it is likely not very easy. I am not familiar enough with the charters of either major party though to fully answer the question.

[Rowan]

Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.

[Hash]

I know that Canadian and French parties are allowed to temporarily 'exclude' members or kick out members. Something which is used more often than we think.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.

Nor do I, it does nothing to solve any problem we have going on right now other than giving parties some thin plausible deniability. If anyone is kicked out of a party, I'd encourage them to sue and see if such an action actually stands, anyway.

[Purple State]

Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.

Nor do I, it does nothing to solve any problem we have going on right now other than giving parties some thin plausible deniability. If anyone is kicked out of a party, I'd encourage them to sue and see if such an action actually stands, anyway.

Umm, didn't your party kick Xahar out? We kicked Dan out for his abuse of our trust. I'm not really sure why extreme circumstances do not warrant that sort of power.

Not to mention, parties are private institutions. If you can fire someone for behavior unbecoming of an employee, why can't parties do the same?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.

Nor do I, it does nothing to solve any problem we have going on right now other than giving parties some thin plausible deniability. If anyone is kicked out of a party, I'd encourage them to sue and see if such an action actually stands, anyway.

Umm, didn't your party kick Xahar out? We kicked Dan out for his abuse of our trust. I'm not really sure why extreme circumstances do not warrant that sort of power.

We considered it, but we didn't, no. And I never supported it anyway.

I just want it known that Im not happy about any of this either, as I was one of his most vocal defenders. But I still don't think expulsion from the party is a reasonable sentence.

Suspension, as Sib just said, is likely to happen anyway.

[Purple State]

Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.

Nor do I, it does nothing to solve any problem we have going on right now other than giving parties some thin plausible deniability. If anyone is kicked out of a party, I'd encourage them to sue and see if such an action actually stands, anyway.

Umm, didn't your party kick Xahar out? We kicked Dan out for his abuse of our trust. I'm not really sure why extreme circumstances do not warrant that sort of power.

We considered it, but we didn't, no. And I never supported it anyway.

I just want it known that Im not happy about any of this either, as I was one of his most vocal defenders. But I still don't think expulsion from the party is a reasonable sentence.

Suspension, as Sib just said, is likely to happen anyway.

Fair enough.

I do still believe (not sure if you responded before I edited it in) that as private institutions, parties have this right. The question then becomes what requirement does the government have to enforce that right. Obviously the current state of the law (no law) would indicate anyone could simply rejoin a party that expels them. The Senate may choose to simply deny the right of parties to do so by neglecting to pass this legislation. It would seem to be a valid path for the Senate to take, albeit one I disagree with.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I would like to bring attention to the fact that Marokai's introduced Protection of Public Health Act, as well as the Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act (Although I like that name) are regional matters that should not be addressed by the federal senate.

As a citizen who cares a great deal about our regions' rights, I see this as a huge wrong on the part of Senator Marokai Blue. I hope that others that care about regional rights will agree with me on this issue. This should be left to the regions.

[DownWithTheLeft]

However, if these things are prohibited by federal law, maybe a bill simply decriminalizing them and not making them legal would be effective in turn allowing the regions to set precendent in a way they cannot now

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would like to bring attention to the fact that Marokai's introduced Protection of Public Health Act, as well as the Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act (Although I like that name) are regional matters that should not be addressed by the federal senate.

As a citizen who cares a great deal about our regions' rights, I see this as a huge wrong on the part of Senator Marokai Blue. I hope that others that care about regional rights will agree with me on this issue. This should be left to the regions.

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The former is a matter of public health and as such is most certainly in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the latter is simply a matter of coming to terms with the reality of our modern society and growing up.

Unless you have a reason why this is harmful it's all "regional rights" nonsense just for the sake of it.