Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Franzl]

I think a reasonable case could be made in court once he returns.

I'm kind of reluctant to support the amendment here....it doesn't seem appropriate in a democratic game.

On the other hand, it does seem it would protect Atlasia, regardless of principle.

Still...wouldn't it make more sense to try him in court once he gets back?

Apparently, there is some proof concerning Marokai Blue's account. I have not seen any proof yet, but it seems quite probable. We could always give him the maximum penalty for that, and that'd get rid of the problem for a while at least.

[Franzl]

I think a reasonable case could be made in court once he returns.

I'm kind of reluctant to support the amendment here....it doesn't seem appropriate in a democratic game.

On the other hand, it does seem it would protect Atlasia, regardless of principle.

Still...wouldn't it make more sense to try him in court once he gets back?

Apparently, there is some proof concerning Marokai Blue's account. I have not seen any proof yet, but it seems quite probable. We could always give him the maximum penalty for that, and that'd get rid of the problem for a while at least.

The problem is we need a permanent solution to his shinanigans. Is there no sentence of life without parole? There needs to be a way to permanently remove people from the game. It shouldn't be easy to do, but it should be an available option.

Yes, treason carries a maximum life ban from voting and holding office. The problem is...we need some real evidence that actual treason happened defined by the CCJA. I don't think it would be very easy to prove in court, especially evidence...usually...has to come from somewhere on the Atlas forum...and that'd be difficult considering Xahar has been banned for a while. OTherwise an admission of guilt would need to have been documented in a public place and witnessed by multiple people.

[Franzl]

Would treason extend to intent to sabotage an aspect of Atlasia? I think subversive tactics to attack an Atlasian party (RPP) or to induce fear upon individual members (Marokai) should be considered treason against Atlasia as a whole, no matter where the evidence is found (unless of course evidence can only be used from within the Atlas forum).

Treason is only for actually attempting to overthrow the government of Atlasia. And while many (including myself) believe that that was his intent....I don't think it's very likely that we have any case in court. I explained what evidence can be used in a previous post.

The terrorization of Marokai is also a terrible crime...but it certainly is not treason as defined by our law. I still think that incident would be the best way to go about right now, as it's (at this point) the most likely to result in a conviction. (Assuming we have clear evidence of that)

[Franzl]

I'm considering a bill to shut down the senate during the convention, or at least allow no votes on constitutional amendments

The latter would be more reasonable.

There are other things...not concerning the actual rules of the game, that could still be discussed.

[Franzl]

The terrorization of Marokai is also a terrible crime...but it certainly is not treason as defined by our law. I still think that incident would be the best way to go about right now, as it's (at this point) the most likely to result in a conviction. (Assuming we have clear evidence of that)

If it can be proven that he has done this to Marokai, then the evidence should be presented to the mods and he should be banned from the Forum permanently. If it can't be proven, then action should not be taken against him. Constitutional changes to prevent him from participating in the game is either a vastly inadequate punishment for what is clearly a terrible offence, or an unfair punishment against someone against whom no offence can be proved. This should be left in the hands of Dave and the mods.

OK, I agree. I was just talking from an Atlasian viewpoint, but you're right.

[Franzl]

I'll happily work on the heroin bill. I'll need to analyze it more closely, though.

[Franzl]

Atlasian Tax Code Resolution

Whereas, Atlasia has existed for years without a functioning or present tax code,
therefore let it be

Resolved, that an independent commission shall be instituted for the formation of a tax code to be presented to the Atlasian Senate for approval. The commission shall be made up of the President or a citizen so designated to fill his place, the Attorney General, the PPT, the five regional Governors or any citizen of the same region so designated by a Governor, and two additional Senators so appointed by the Senate. At any time the commission may, by two-thirds consent, approve the addition of outside members as full voting members.

Resolved, that this tax code shall include, but not be limited to, an income tax, sales tax, social security tax, and estate tax. The proposal shall be prepared and presented before the start of FY 2010.

Don't we also currently have a carbon tax, or was that just repealed?

It may be repealed in favor of cap-and-trade, or may not be. It can be included in this new tax code, but I want to make sure that we at least get the other things.

Looks like the carbon tax is here to stay...

While we are on the subject of controlling CO2 emissions, it surprises me that no senator (even among the conservative bloc) has introduced a bill expanding the use of nuclear power until around 75 to 80% of our energy needs are met by nuclear power plants.  If there is anything about France that we should emulate, it is that.

Hope you don't mind if I steal your idea....but it's a good one, and I plan to introduce something concerning that soon.

[Franzl]

Affirmative Action Prohibition Bill:

Section 1: Atlasia recognizes affirmative action based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any factor not related to economic status as an unacceptable form of discrimination.

Section 2: Such policies shall be prohibited throughout Atlasia.

This is an excellent bill, and I hope the Senate can pass it quickly, with little or no alterations.

Good to hear

[Franzl]

Affirmative Action Prohibition Bill:

Section 1: Atlasia recognizes affirmative action based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any factor not related to economic status as an unacceptable form of discrimination.

Section 2: Such policies shall be prohibited throughout Atlasia.

This is an excellent bill, and I hope the Senate can pass it quickly, with little or no alterations.

Good to hear

I just wanted to throw all of my political weight behind this bill

I thought you wanted this bill to pass!

[Franzl]

I have some major problems with parts of this legislation, but I hope we will all be able to find some middle ground.

[Franzl]

The legislation regarding motorcycles is awfully draconian.

[Franzl]

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

I don't mind.

[Franzl]

I also believe the bill to be unconstitutional.

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

Any parent who lets a 12 year old look at a nude women needs to have there children taken away and put in protective custody, and they should be punished severely.

I didn't know you hated freedom and like the nanny state so much

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

I am a Moderate remember. Just Banning Sex before marriage will do.

Oh I see that I'm going to have fun with this bill

[Franzl]

I don't think you can do that retroactively

He was a governor, and since it wasn't legally challenged at that time, I don't see what that matters now.

[Franzl]

Forget it.

[Franzl]

Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?

[Franzl]

Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?

I support them fully but abortion is a matter of life and death, we must protect the innocent from death.

But isn't a woman whose life is in danger equally innocent?

[Franzl]

It appears that the Cabinet Restructuring Bill needs some kind of provision detailing appointment procedures.

I interpreted "in accordance with current Senate procedure" to mean that they would be appointed as current cabinet members are.

[Franzl]

Voting Reform Bill of 2009

1. A person is not eligible to become a registered member of Atlasia until they have been a member of the Atlas Forum proper for 6 months.

2. All current registered members of Atlasia will not be affected by this change.

Why?