Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I also thought of another problem.  How do roommates go about splitting the tax rebate you're offering?

The roommate thing is simple.  The rebate goes to the person listed on the electric bill.  Roommates can arrange to split the credit the same way they split the electric bill.

And what of those who live in an apartment which have utilities provided?  For a good bit of my time in college, I lived in an apartment building that had centrally provided radiant heat and no individual metering of utilities.  (I imagine it was too expensive equipment wise to retrofit the building for individual metering.)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I also thought of another problem.  How do roommates go about splitting the tax rebate you're offering?

The roommate thing is simple.  The rebate goes to the person listed on the electric bill.  Roommates can arrange to split the credit the same way they split the electric bill.

And what of those who live in an apartment which have utilities provided?  For a good bit of my time in college, I lived in an apartment building that had centrally provided radiant heat and no individual metering of utilities.  (I imagine it was too expensive equipment wise to retrofit the building for individual metering.)

Ah, interesting point, and one that leaves me conflicted about where to proceed to.

We could require utilities to provide cost-averaged carbon tax estimates, since I would expect a bump up in utilities would be passed on directly to the consumer.  It's where I'm leaning right now.  (I'm pretty sure I don't want the cash going to the management company.)

Or, I could just say that management companies will have to eat the carbon tax and try to deal.  Unfortunately, shared utilities is a darned good way to optimize waste of resources, so maybe sticker shock would do the environment a lot of good in that case.  Let me sleep on that one.

[The Dowager Mod]

Seeing some of the patently ridiculous legislation in the queu yet no jury reform bill makes me wonder.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Seeing some of the patently ridiculous legislation in the queu yet no jury reform bill makes me wonder.

You mean you don't support Stem Cell Reserach (sic)?  Monster!

I'm wondering whether or not the PPT should have new, expanded power to better manage the queue—perhaps a new slot open to legislation at the PPT's discretion?

[Јas]

Seeing some of the patently ridiculous legislation in the queu yet no jury reform bill makes me wonder.

Senator Al has re-introduced his Jury Reform Bill. It is now back inthe legislative queue.

I'm wondering whether or not the PPT should have new, expanded power to better manage the queue—perhaps a new slot open to legislation at the PPT's discretion?

Art. 7 of the OSPR allows the PPT and President of the Senate, when working in unison, to work around the normal Senate procedures with the particular aim of moving up particularly important pieces of legislation.

[opebo]

Just curious, is that nonsense about interfering with the Court finally dead?

[bullmoose88]

Just curious, is that nonsense about interfering with the Court finally dead?

Even further politicizing the court is never dead.

But it is off the table for the near future.

[opebo]

Just curious, is that nonsense about interfering with the Court finally dead?

Even further politicizing the court is never dead.

But it is off the table for the near future.

Thanks brother Justice.

[bullmoose88]

Just curious, is that nonsense about interfering with the Court finally dead?

Even further politicizing the court is never dead.

But it is off the table for the near future.

Thanks brother Justice.

Brother justice...how quaint.  I thought the RL court stopped using that language.

[opebo]

Just curious, is that nonsense about interfering with the Court finally dead?

Even further politicizing the court is never dead.

But it is off the table for the near future.

Thanks brother Justice.

Brother justice...how quaint.  I thought the RL court stopped using that language.

Whatever the Ralph Lauren court may do, brother justice, you will always be a brother to me.  Brother.

[Ebowed]

Science in the Classrooms Bill & Education Reform Bill of 2007 are withdrawn.

[Јas]

Science in the Classrooms Bill & Education Reform Bill of 2007 are withdrawn.

Noted, thanks

[MAS117]

The Northeast region has been a vocal and strong advocate for Stem Cell Research. This legislation was passed back in 2005:

Northeastern Stem Cell Act of 2005

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Northeastern Region of the Republic of Atlasia,

§ I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Governor shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).

§ II. Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Governor if the cells meet each of the following:

(a) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.

(b) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

(c) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

[SPC]

Press Complaints Commission Bill

Section 1 - In order to safeguard the integrity of our free press and the freedom of the individual, there shall be established a Press Complaints Commission empowered with the authority to investigate charges brought to it on the basis of the following grievances: slander without due basis, fabrication of a story or editorial involving a named individual, insults against a named person, statements regarding an individual deemed to be considered by said individual as a statement of untruth.

Section 2a - The Press Complaints Commission shall consist of two individuals appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate except where identified as exempt by Section 2b.

Section 2b - No member of the Press Complaints Commission shall be an owner, proprietor or editor of any national media outlet.

Section 3 - The Commission shall have the authority to adjudicate on any matter brought before it by aggrieved persons. All parties involved shall be granted the right of representation during the period of adjudication.

Section4 - The Commission shall have the authority to impose a fine of between $100 and $100,000 if it finds in favour of the complaint brought before it by the aggrieved.

-----------------

May require modification.

I would like to complain about Section 4 of the bill. The National Weekly Atlasian only has a few thousand dollars on hand, so this section may have unintended consequences.

[afleitch]

The fine itself is broad. If it was judged the NWA could only pay $100 if it breached any of the guidlines above then that is all that may be recommended. The fine is not designed to cripple the media.

[SPC]

The fine itself is broad. If it was judged the NWA could only pay $100 if it breached any of the guidlines above then that is all that may be recommended. The fine is not designed to cripple the media.

Okay, then that is understandable. You might want to add a section to the bill explaining that when this gets brought up.

[Bacon King]

A couple of questions I have about Por- er, Ebowed's newest bill.

3. The use of phosphates containing radium 226, which contains radioactive elements, which are attributed to 90% of smoking-related lung cancer deaths, as a fertilizer for tobacco crops is criminalized.

This is ambiguously worded. Are phosphates with radium 226 responsible for 90% of lung cancer deaths, or are radioactive elements in general?

Also, for debate's sake, can this statement be sourced?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you mean by crop? A specific area of field?

[Ebowed]

Well, first I'd like to note that the bill is intended to be pro-tobacco (in consistency with my position on drugs in general), but there is a difference between being pro-tobacco and pro-Big Tobacco.

My source was the following page: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health2.shtml

The site has a pro-cannabis bias, which I don't entirely agree with, but the section on radioactive material in corporate tobacco is relevant to the bill.

As to Section 4, I cannot clarify since I don't know anything about tobacco farming.  The bill will need to be fleshed out a little.

[Colin]

I would like to thank Lewis for re-introducing the End to Districts Amendment. The last thing I would have wanted to do was prod an unwilling Senator into introducing it again.

[Verily]

I'm a little concerned that no effort was made to make it more acceptable to the Regions. Yes, I'd love to see it passed, but reintroducing it in essentially the same form won't make it more likely that the Regions will approve.

[Colin]

I'm a little concerned that no effort was made to make it more acceptable to the Regions. Yes, I'd love to see it passed, but reintroducing it in essentially the same form won't make it more likely that the Regions will approve.

I can't see how one could make it any more acceptable to the regions. Unless we increase the size of the Senate, which is impossible, either the regional Senators or the district Senators will have to go. Overall it is actually because of regional rights issues that the district Senators were chosen as those to get rid of, since they represent completely non-regional entities and their only link with the districts is through redistricting. If you have any suggestions I am completely open to them.

[Verily]

I'm a little concerned that no effort was made to make it more acceptable to the Regions. Yes, I'd love to see it passed, but reintroducing it in essentially the same form won't make it more likely that the Regions will approve.

I can't see how one could make it any more acceptable to the regions. Unless we increase the size of the Senate, which is impossible, either the regional Senators or the district Senators will have to go. Overall it is actually because of regional rights issues that the district Senators were chosen as those to get rid of, since they represent completely non-regional entities and their only link with the districts is through redistricting. If you have any suggestions I am completely open to them.

I'm not sure removing the Regional Senators instead of the District Senators would be considered as much of an affront by the Regions. After all, many who voted against the Amendment appear to have done so because of concerns about the level of democracy offered by an STV system. The Regional Senators, representing Regions of widely varying population, are in that sense much less democratic than the District Senators.

Moreover, as the Regional Senators are primarily concerned with federal affairs, none of us has the time to devote to Regional activity--and nor do we have any more constitutional powers than the average citizens of the Regions. However small the power to redistrict is, it is more power vested in the Regions than the Regional Senators have in relation to their Regions specifically.

I don't know, maybe removing the Regional Senators would meet with greater opposition. It's at least worth hearing what those opposed have to say, as I doubt every single Nay voter opposes the theory of STV over FPTP.

[Jake]

I'm thinking most people are from the "It's a US simulation game, I don't want to change it" camp. They're not going to accept PR-STV no matter what, despite the fact that it's a better system for us to use and that it'll make things easier. The anti-Region argument just doesn't make sense. It removes one single regional power, and one that if done correctly shouldn't have any bearing at all on how regions function.

Just bring it up again, pass it, and try to see if those few SE voters will not show up.

[Јas]

I'm not sure removing the Regional Senators instead of the District Senators would be considered as much of an affront by the Regions. After all, many who voted against the Amendment appear to have done so because of concerns about the level of democracy offered by an STV system. The Regional Senators, representing Regions of widely varying population, are in that sense much less democratic than the District Senators.

Moreover, as the Regional Senators are primarily concerned with federal affairs, none of us has the time to devote to Regional activity--and nor do we have any more constitutional powers than the average citizens of the Regions. However small the power to redistrict is, it is more power vested in the Regions than the Regional Senators have in relation to their Regions specifically.

I don't know, maybe removing the Regional Senators would meet with greater opposition. It's at least worth hearing what those opposed have to say, as I doubt every single Nay voter opposes the theory of STV over FPTP.

For my own 2 cents, the region failed in the Pacific because of 1 very influential voter (in this regard I'd note that 2 Pacificans changed their votes from Aye to Nay during polling).

Changing the amendment from Regional to District Senators may actually work but it would actually mean taking away from Regional Rights, as opposed to taking away from Governor's busy-work which has recently been lauded as a "regional right".

[Verily]

I'm not sure removing the Regional Senators instead of the District Senators would be considered as much of an affront by the Regions. After all, many who voted against the Amendment appear to have done so because of concerns about the level of democracy offered by an STV system. The Regional Senators, representing Regions of widely varying population, are in that sense much less democratic than the District Senators.

Moreover, as the Regional Senators are primarily concerned with federal affairs, none of us has the time to devote to Regional activity--and nor do we have any more constitutional powers than the average citizens of the Regions. However small the power to redistrict is, it is more power vested in the Regions than the Regional Senators have in relation to their Regions specifically.

I don't know, maybe removing the Regional Senators would meet with greater opposition. It's at least worth hearing what those opposed have to say, as I doubt every single Nay voter opposes the theory of STV over FPTP.

For my own 2 cents, the region failed in the Pacific because of 1 very influential voter (in this regard I'd note that 2 Pacificans changed their votes from Aye to Nay during polling).

Changing the amendment from Regional to District Senators may actually work but it would actually mean taking away from Regional Rights, as opposed to taking away from Governor's busy-work which has recently been lauded as a "regional right".

Oh, I'm not talking about the Pacific Hive Mind, I'm talking about the voters who actually had a reason for voting Nay.