Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[DownWithTheLeft]

I wonder if the school funding bill is aimed at the Southeast

[Hash]

David Yates Death Act

1. For Atlasia purposes, the former VP, David Yates, has passed away from brain cancer

Perhaps you should also establish a Ministry of Truth.

You need to pass a law saying that a person, that is also a liar and disgusting person, is dead?

[Bono]

I wonder if the school funding bill is aimed at the Southeast

I wonder if the sky is blue...

[DownWithTheLeft]

I wonder if the school funding bill is aimed at the Southeast

I wonder if the sky is blue...

Right now it is, but I heard some clouds might roll in later this afternoon.  Hope your enjoying your sunny day!

[Bacon King]

Reserach

appropriatley

Is it too difficult to spell-check legislation before proposing it?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Reserach

appropriatley

Is it too difficult to spell-check legislation before proposing it?

Yes

[SPC]

I am glad to see Senator Jas is proposing some things, but I wish he had proposed these earlier, when they could have been voted on in the last Senate.

[Brandon H]

The Introduction to Atlasia Act could be implemented without a bill passing the Senate, though in the form of a bill, the thing is more concrete and less flexible though than if the executive were to act on his own.

[Јas]

The Introduction to Atlasia Act could be implemented without a bill passing the Senate, though in the form of a bill, the thing is more concrete and less flexible though than if the executive were to act on his own.

This is true, but legislatively mandating such a thread will hopefully ensure that it will continue beyond the lifetime of any particular executive in a standardised but hopefully up-to-date manner.

The Bill does also allow for flexibility for the SoFA to mention such matters relevant to law or the state of the forum as he may consider expedient. Also, the Senate shall of course be free to amend the statement as it sees fit by altering the passage, adding some additional material, or allowing for more defined fleixibility for SoFAs to work within.

Finally, it also provides a small incentive for parties to be somewhat organised. Major parties will have the benefit of advertisement to newbies, increasing their awareness and possibly leading to increased memberships.

[Sam Spade]

FWIW, here are my opening thoughts on the proposed legislation:

1st Bill - Will support in present form
2nd Bill - Undecided (e.g. I really see no reason for clause b and the rest I am unsure about)
3rd Bill - Will oppose in any form
4th Bill - Will oppose in present form, but I could certainly support with some modifications
5th Bill - Undecided (very undecided actually)

[Јas]

FWIW, here are my opening thoughts on the proposed legislation:

1st Bill - Will support in present form

2nd Bill - Undecided (e.g. I really see no reason for clause b and the rest I am unsure about)

(a), (b) and (c) I figured were the 3 most logical options which should be open to the sponsor: motion to accept the redraft completely; reject the redraft completely; or allow the Senate to consider the bill in it's redrafted form. I don't really understand why (b) in particular would be unworthy. Please explain further so that I can understand your position more fully with a view to a possible pre-emptive amendment before it hits the floor.

3rd Bill - Will oppose in any form

4th Bill - Will oppose in present form, but I could certainly support with some modifications

What modifications would you suggest and why?

5th Bill - Undecided (very undecided actually)

Would you care to elucidate?

I don't mean to effectively open debate on these matters now, however when they do reach the Senate floor, I would hope that their progress be as smooth as possible. I respect your work on forum affairs matters and so I would be particularly keen to hear your grievances/concerns.

[Sam Spade]

2nd Bill - (a), (b) and (c) I figured were the 3 most logical options which should be open to the sponsor: motion to accept the redraft completely; reject the redraft completely; or allow the Senate to consider the bill in it's redrafted form. I don't really understand why (b) in particular would be unworthy. Please explain further so that I can understand your position more fully with a view to a possible pre-emptive amendment before it hits the floor.

Here is what I have in mind:

1. If the President vetoes and proposes a "redraft", the sponsor may choose to 1) file an "approve the redraft" motion or 2) withdraw the legislation.

2. If the sponsor wishes to file an "approve the redraft" motion and the motion is approved, then the redrafted bill will be returned to the Prez.

3. If the Senate rejects the "approve the redraft" motion, the sponsor may file a second motion:  Whether to 1) send the original legislation back to the Prez or 2) resume debate on the original legislation, not the "redraft".  (which can be proposed as an amendment, if someone cares to).  If the sponsor at this time wishes to withdraw the legislation, he may.

It would need to be reworded, but this could essentially be amended by adding a little language to the Constitution allowing the President to "redraft" any legislation presented to him, which would then be sent back to the Senate for approval or rejection.

The rest could be dealt with in Senate rules.    I would have to work out the language.  And I know this is more pro-Senate than otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big deal would be requiring a Senate sponsor for any popularly approved legislation.  Similar to what I used to do in the old days.  No Senate sponsor, no dice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just really don't know whether the Prez should have to reappoint SC justices or not.  I can see positives and negatives.  A real undecided, frankly.

[Sensei]

I agree to an extent with Senator Spade's problem with the 5th bill. I think Justices should be elected officials, honestly. But that isn't feasible, since it may give us inept officials with little constitutional acumen, so I think the bill should limit the amount of terms a justice can serve.

[Јas]

2nd Bill - (a), (b) and (c) I figured were the 3 most logical options which should be open to the sponsor: motion to accept the redraft completely; reject the redraft completely; or allow the Senate to consider the bill in it's redrafted form. I don't really understand why (b) in particular would be unworthy. Please explain further so that I can understand your position more fully with a view to a possible pre-emptive amendment before it hits the floor.

Here is what I have in mind:

1. If the President vetoes and proposes a "redraft", the sponsor may choose to 1) file an "approve the redraft" motion or 2) withdraw the legislation.

2. If the sponsor wishes to file an "approve the redraft" motion and the motion is approved, then the redrafted bill will be returned to the Prez.

3. If the Senate rejects the "approve the redraft" motion, the sponsor may file a second motion:  Whether to 1) send the original legislation back to the Prez or 2) resume debate on the original legislation, not the "redraft".  (which can be proposed as an amendment, if someone cares to).  If the sponsor at this time wishes to withdraw the legislation, he may.

It would need to be reworded, but this could essentially be amended by adding a little language to the Constitution allowing the President to "redraft" any legislation presented to him, which would then be sent back to the Senate for approval or rejection.

The rest could be dealt with in Senate rules.    I would have to work out the language.  And I know this is more pro-Senate than otherwise.

I don't really understand why the sponsor should be limited in his choices in this way. Why not allow him the options to motion approval, disapproval or continue debate immediately?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big deal would be requiring a Senate sponsor for any popularly approved legislation.  Similar to what I used to do in the old days.  No Senate sponsor, no dice.

Why the hard line? (This coming from someone who feels that sponsorship isn't even necessarily a necessary or good idea generally.)

[Gabu]

Just a thought about this one:

People’s Referendum Amendment

...

When these requirements are met and verified by the Secretary of Forum Affairs, the Secretary shall organise a special referendum on the legislation on the next weekend falling no less than 4 days from the date on which he verified that the above requirements were met.

Isn't it possible for this to be literally impossible?  If the requirements are met on a Saturday, there is no next weekend falling no less the 4 days later.

[Јas]

Just a thought about this one:

People’s Referendum Amendment

...

When these requirements are met and verified by the Secretary of Forum Affairs, the Secretary shall organise a special referendum on the legislation on the next weekend falling no less than 4 days from the date on which he verified that the above requirements were met.

Isn't it possible for this to be literally impossible?  If the requirements are met on a Saturday, there is no next weekend falling no less the 4 days later.

Ah, I've amended it now. I believe the changing of 'no' to 'not' rectifies that, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[Sam Spade]

2nd Bill - I don't really understand why the sponsor should be limited in his choices in this way. Why not allow him the options to motion approval, disapproval or continue debate immediately?

Because this way gives the Senate body much more power over the bill than the sponsor - if you don't like sponsors, that's the way to go.  However, it does assure that the sponsor has one important power - withdrawing the legislation whenever he wants (not during votes obviously), which acts as a balance towards weird Presidential rewrites that may have Senate support, but not sponsor support. 

In my OSPR rewrite, I intend to work out this section, b/c sponsors should really have two powers - withdrawing his sponsored legislation and adding sponsors and they should impact each other.  No more.

Moreover, it harmonizes a Presidential veto procedurally (the sponsor has to file a motion to override or withdraw the legislation there too).  And it actually simplifies the whole process and eliminates loopholes.  For example, if the sponsor were to file a motion to reject (b) under your proposal and the rest of the Senate wanted to approve the bill, we would be forced to go back to debate again and approve again with amendments.  Or if the Senate wanted to remove the bill back into debate and the sponsor filed a motion to approve the "redraft", the Senate would have no power to return to debate.

In my creation, the Senate either votes to accept the Prez's redraft or not.  Then if the Senate chooses not to, it can choose to either send the Prez the original bill or return to the debate floor.  The sponsor can withdraw the legislation if he wants to before a decision has been.

Another issue that I hadn't thought of before is whether the President should have multiple redrafts of legislation.  Just FYI.

And there is no assurance in my mind that I would support my proposal.  I'm just merely presenting an alternative that I might support for your perusal.  Clear? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Three reasons:  1) Because of the power of withdrawal, which I believe any and all sponsors acting together should have; 2) Practically, we should all reserve rights to act as stewards of legislation and have the chance to get public acclaim for working with the Senate on popular-created legislation;  3) Just because legislation receives 15% of voters does not mean that it is worthy of a spot in the Senate debate.  People are elected Senators for a reason - to have privilege over the laws that are created and the laws that are passed.  Even though DWTL's stuff is crap, it deserves preference b/c he was duly elected.

In other words, the door should be open to the people, but Senators should be allowed to close it whenever we think it is in our best interests.  Might be a little anti-democratic, but I don't believe in pure democracies.

[Јas]

2nd Bill - I don't really understand why the sponsor should be limited in his choices in this way. Why not allow him the options to motion approval, disapproval or continue debate immediately?

Because this way gives the Senate body much more power over the bill than the sponsor - if you don't like sponsors, that's the way to go.  However, it does assure that the sponsor has one important power - withdrawing the legislation whenever he wants (not during votes obviously), which acts as a balance towards weird Presidential rewrites that may have Senate support, but not sponsor support. 

In my OSPR rewrite, I intend to work out this section, b/c sponsors should really have two powers - withdrawing his sponsored legislation and adding sponsors and they should impact each other.  No more.

Moreover, it harmonizes a Presidential veto procedurally (the sponsor has to file a motion to override or withdraw the legislation there too).  And it actually simplifies the whole process and eliminates loopholes.  For example, if the sponsor were to file a motion to reject (b) under your proposal and the rest of the Senate wanted to approve the bill, we would be forced to go back to debate again and approve again with amendments.  Or if the Senate wanted to remove the bill back into debate and the sponsor filed a motion to approve the "redraft", the Senate would have no power to return to debate.

In my creation, the Senate either votes to accept the Prez's redraft or not.  Then if the Senate chooses not to, it can choose to either send the Prez the original bill or return to the debate floor.  The sponsor can withdraw the legislation if he wants to before a decision has been.

Another issue that I hadn't thought of before is whether the President should have multiple redrafts of legislation.  Just FYI.

And there is no assurance in my mind that I would support my proposal.  I'm just merely presenting an alternative that I might support for your perusal.  Clear? 

I've made some changes to the proposal.
The first limits the President to one redraft per bill.
The second explicitly provides the sponsor with the option for withdrawal.
The third changes the resumed deabte option to that on the bill presented to the President originally.

I'm actually not sure that you'll approve at all, but then again you said you wouldn't necessarily approve a complete re-write to your suggestion anyway - so I'll stand by my position for another while (I still feel that your options are too limiting on the sponsor).
Either way, please do offer your thoughts.

You do raise a fair point in the example you raised, where the Senate would have no power to resume debate in those circumstances, but then the same applies where the sponsor withdraws the bill completely. I'll have to consider this further.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Three reasons:  1) Because of the power of withdrawal, which I believe any and all sponsors acting together should have; 2) Practically, we should all reserve rights to act as stewards of legislation and have the chance to get public acclaim for working with the Senate on popular-created legislation;  3) Just because legislation receives 15% of voters does not mean that it is worthy of a spot in the Senate debate.  People are elected Senators for a reason - to have privilege over the laws that are created and the laws that are passed.  Even though DWTL's stuff is crap, it deserves preference b/c he was duly elected.

In other words, the door should be open to the people, but Senators should be allowed to close it whenever we think it is in our best interests.  Might be a little anti-democratic, but I don't believe in pure democracies.

Not unreasonable points. You suggested though that certain modifications could alleviate your concerns. Care to elaborate?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Any thoughts on the Steroids Bill?  I think it is written clearly and fits within the boundaries of the constitution.

[Gabu]

Just a thought about this one:

People’s Referendum Amendment

...

When these requirements are met and verified by the Secretary of Forum Affairs, the Secretary shall organise a special referendum on the legislation on the next weekend falling no less than 4 days from the date on which he verified that the above requirements were met.

Isn't it possible for this to be literally impossible?  If the requirements are met on a Saturday, there is no next weekend falling no less the 4 days later.

Ah, I've amended it now. I believe the changing of 'no' to 'not' rectifies that, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh wait, yes, I was reading it wrong... I thought it was saying that it has to happen within four days, but I now see that it's saying that it has to happen at least four days later.

[Sam Spade]

Jas - To be frank, the only bill that I know right now I would wholeheartedly support is the 1st bill.  The only bill I will oppose regardless is the 3rd bill.

My quandary about the 5th bill has already been made.  On the 2nd bill, I am plainly unsure whether or not I support that increase in executive power.  On the 4th bill, I am plainly unsure whether or not I support that increase in citizen power over the Senate.

Different wording may not change my final opinion, but where I have issues, I am merely trying to lay out what they are, so that you (and the Senate) may take them under consideration.

[Sam Spade]

Any thoughts on the Steroids Bill?  I think it is written clearly and fits within the boundaries of the constitution.

The 2nd section is clearly unconstitutional - private entities and all.  Even though your ideas almost sound like suggestions, rather than orders.  There is no commerce clause play in this constitution, and the taxing and spending power doesn't reach it either.

The rest of the bill I might support (or I might not), but it needs to be worded better.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Any thoughts on the Steroids Bill?  I think it is written clearly and fits within the boundaries of the constitution.

The 2nd section is clearly unconstitutional - private entities and all.  Even though your ideas almost sound like suggestions, rather than orders.  There is no commerce clause play in this constitution, and the taxing and spending power doesn't reach it either.

The rest of the bill I might support (or I might not), but it needs to be worded better.

I interpreted that you could regulate private buisness for the good of public health.  That's why I thought it was constitutional.  I wanted the private employers in there to try and go after professional sports.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Any thoughts on the Steroids Bill?  I think it is written clearly and fits within the boundaries of the constitution.

Can't say I care for it at all in its current form.

Section 1 just doesn't make much sense.  Government employees by and large are not in position where the use of performance enhancing drugs would affect their work performance or their job security so all this would do wound penalize people for using steroids.  I'm not a fan at all of the idea that the way to stop drug abuse is to penalize people who use drugs so that they have additional reasons to conceal their use and since they are already considered criminals, have less reason to not engage in other criminal behaviors.

Section 2 would, if anything, serve to limit the ability of private employers to use tests for steroids since it would limit them to only 2 tests a year.  If you're running a professional sport, anything less than monthly testing for steroids is a joke.

Section 3 only makes sense in conjunction with sections 1 or 2.

Section 4 creates a special class of drug law just for anabolic steroids.  If you want to increase the penalties for anabolic steroids, have them bumped up from Schedule III to Schedule II instead.  If you want to bump up penalties for selling drugs to minors make some modifications to section 859 of title 21 (currently penalties are doubled for selling to a minor on a first offense and trebled on a second or later offense). Maximum penalty now for selling steroids to a minor is now 10 years (5 years for being schedule III, doubled fro selling to someone under age 21).  Bumping steroids up to schedule II would make the maximum 20 years (40 years if sold to a minor).

[Ebowed]

People’s Referendum Amendment

Whensoever legislation is signed into law by the President, .... containing the Act as signed by the President

What if legislation becomes law thanks to presidential inaction, or is vetoed and overridden?