Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Peter]

Referring to Senator Spade's new SPR:

A Bill is something that is in (or awaiting) debate in the Senate; A Bill becomes an Act when it achieves passage into Law (e.g. when the President signs the Bill after Senate approval). At least this is the technical definitions that are generally used, though people here seem to introduce "Acts" into the Senate. Maybe we ought to codify this relationship at some point.

In Section 3 Clause 1, I would also point out that the Senate does debate Resolutions, and these have been counted against the limits for legislation on the floor.

[Peter]

This has always bugged me, so I certainly wouldn't mind it if we did something on it, although I'm afraid it might confuse or scare off people if we yell at them every time they introduce an "act" to the Senate.

I don't suggest anything so harsh, perhaps the PPT is of the understanding that when he starts the new thread, he starts it as a Bill regardless of what it was in the Introduction thread.

[Peter]

Actually, it DOES say that there have to be 10 states per region.  At least it did in the old Constitution, I don't know if the new one says that.

That was a ridiculous requirement that we removed.

[Peter]

How much more legislation are we going to be bothering with considering that we have just over 10 days left in the legislative session, and we have a number of vacancies (or effective vacancies): Nym90, Naso, NixonNow.

[Peter]

Replying to Supersoulty's proposed amendment:

Without commenting on the substance of your amendment, I would like to comment that I think we should do the Constitutional Amendments as in the US Constitution for easier reference - i.e. Amendment I, Amendment II, etc., rather than inserting them into the present document.

[Peter]

Replying to Supersoulty's proposed amendment:

Without commenting on the substance of your amendment, I would like to comment that I think we should do the Constitutional Amendments as in the US Constitution for easier reference - i.e. Amendment I, Amendment II, etc., rather than inserting them into the present document.

What Ammendment would this be then?

Inserting new clauses on to the bottom of specific sections of the Constitution, but just list them on the bottom of the Constitution and have them numbered.

[Peter]

There are presently two gaps on the floor, and we've got a few days, so I'm going to put the next couple of pieces on the floor since they are relatively easy to handle.

I will not be introducing the Assault Weapons Ban Bill from NixonNow because Gabu does not recognise him as a Senator and therefore it has no sponsor, nor the SPR from Naso since he's definitely resigned.

[Peter]

Do we have a new legislation intro thread for the 7th session or will the current be used until it is 100 pages long?

Hopefully we will get a new one, but we're going to need a moderator to change the sticky over, and I don't want to particuarly delete the old one at this point.

[Peter]

This bill is unnecessary.  Why regulate something that pretty much already happens?  I really don't see the need for even more rules and regulations.

I think you'll find that the District 5 mess of the last election has presented ample need for this legislation: It was impossible for Sight nor SoFA to really determine in which seats DanielX was still running.

This bill will hopefully also make a less active SoFA's job much more easier come election time.

[Peter]

Section 5 of Master Jedi's bill is unconstitutional - you cannot require a supermajority via statute to change a statute - it unconstitutionally binds future Senates.

[Peter]

The Mideast has the right idea:

Signature and Avatar Amendment
1.  The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia hereby recognizes that a mandatory statement of a voter's registration in a person's avatar or signature is no longer necessary to aide the administrator of an election to determine the state in which a voter is registered.

2.  Upon this recognition, the Senate of Atlasia with the formal consent of the Regions shall repeal Article V, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Atlasian Constitution effective on August 18, 2005.

I thank the Senator for this much needed reform.

[Peter]

Replying to Sam's latest rendition of War and Peace:

Article 2, Clause 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thats a bit like Naso's 'I support abortion except in cases of rape and incest' position isn't it? I look forward to welcoming the Cows recently wed in Thailand to Atlasia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, if this passes, I'm suing Atlasia in a federal court under the Ex Posto Facto clause.

[Peter]

Could someoen put the Military Enlargement bill on the wiki?  I can, but I'm really not very good at putting stuff on there.

Maintaining the legislative statutes has generally been considered to be the job of the Justice department.

[Peter]

Presuming thats introduced legislation, I think you are in the wrong thread Al.

[Peter]

Discussion moved from Page 43 of the Introduction Thread:

While I think banning asbestos is overkill, Section 1 of the Act falls under clause 3 of the Enumerated Powers section of the Constitution; Section 3 falls under clause 10,; Section 4 and 5 falls under clause 9; and Section 6 is a statement of what the Act doesn't do.  The only potentially dicey section is Section 2, but if you can't sell, transport, or make something from the Asbestos once you've mined it, I think a reasonable intrepetation that it falls under clause 30 as a means to enforce the other Constitutional provisions can be made.  In short, while the Asbestos Ban Act has its faults, I don't think Constitutionality is among them.

Whilst I agree that Sections 1 and 3 of the act are justified by enumerated powers you cite, I have been long of the opinion that Sections 2, 4 and 5 are not, hence my explicit singling out of those in my preamblatory clauses.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 9 of our Second Constitution reads thus:
To fix standards of weights and measures and of such items of commerce as it deems needful throughout the Republic of Atlasia.
It is this you cite as justification for at least 4 & 5 of the Act.

To "fix standards ... of such items of commerce as it deems needful" does not convey to me a general commerce power - it articulates a specific commerce power that regulates actual standards, e.g. health and safety standards, water quality standards, etc. It does not cognize the authority to outright ban particular items of commerce, but to regulate particulars of those items.

[Peter]

Dear Vice President Q and Senator MasterJedi, PPT

As you know, the territory of Puerto Rico is caught amid a storm of cotroversy at present and in particular has demanded Regionhood. Whilst the Senate has no power to grant Regionhood, it has been suggested by some that Puerto Rico might be granted Statehood and legislation has been introduced to this effect.

Whilst I have grave concerns about the legislation as submitted, it is correct that this legislation be considered as soon as possible. Whilst all five debate slots are presently occupied, three pieces of legislation are presently at their final vote and a slot will likely open within the next 48 hours. When this occurs I urge you to use your power as enumerated in Article VII, Section 1 of the OSPR to bring this legislation to our immediate consideration.

Regards,

Peter

[Peter]

We presently have the following pieces of legislation on the floor of the Senate according to my count:

Amendment to Introduce a Parlimentary System to Atlasia
Abortion Restriction in Federal Territories Bill
Hate Crimes Statistics Bill
Useless Defense Spending Repeal Bill
Pacifican Statehood Act of 2006

This is obviously five pieces of legislation, so presumably one of these is occupying the "forum affairs" slot. Whilst not explicitly stated, it is strongly implied in our Procedural Rules that the Presiding Officer(s) must state when a piece of legislation is moved into these slots since the Senate is afforded a right to challenge something being moved into these slots.

My question to the Presiding Officers is: Which of these do you claim relates to forum affairs?

[Peter]

I have a few issues that I need cleared up:

Clause 3(a) states that the voting booth administrator shall invalidate the ballot for the concerned offices. When does this occur, or more precisely, when is this allowed to occur?

In this past election, you stated an invalidation of TDs vote during the election. Is this when you actually invalidated the vote officially or did this occur at moment of certification. I think this needs to be cleared up because obviously if we impose a 72 hour limitation on appealing the decision, this may be important in the future because an appeal may or may not be untimely according to how we read the statute.

My next significant issue is with an alleged criminal campaigning violation in a close election. Presume for a moment that the administrator determines criminality, and then refers to the AG who promptly decides to prosecute, then we have situation in which the vote's status cannot be determined very quickly. In a case where that vote is decisive, i.e. it has the ability to decide the election, then it could be several days before a formal determination of its status can be made.

A criminal case could go on for several days - the Court must first appoint a presiding Justice, then assemble a Jury, then consider evidence and finally the jury may wish a little time to deliberate privately. Even in a regular election, there are only 11 days between end of election and swear-in, and this could soon fizzle, especially if a runoff might be required, thus leaving a constituency unrepresented.

In such a case I would allow for the Court to make a determination as to whether civil campaigning has or has not occured in advance of a criminal case so as to finesse the case above. Obviously any such ruling will have a significant impact on  a criminal case, but I feel the advantage of having an election able to proceed smoothly to a conclusion outweighs the problems of having a jury exposed to a judicial determination of whether a lesser offence has been commited.

[Peter]

Why is legislation to renumber sections in the ESRA necessary, or to incorporate UECA sections into it?

If you want one fluid piece of legislation on the subject, better just to pass a single consolidation statute rather than attempt to amend 'in text', because that always gets horribly confusing to the casual observer.

[Peter]

Yet another attempt to violate the general freedom that is granted to each of the non-State/Regional territories in their individual legislatures.  They can and should have the right to determine criminal justice issues for themselves. Having the federal legislature which is elected by other people decide these issues for them is non-democratic.

[Peter]

The Court actually rejected the free market argument in Bono v. Atlasia II. Simply put, the Court ruled that no enumerated power encompasses the power to set a minimum wage.

[Peter]

Regarding Consolidated electoral reform legislation:

Section 7 contains an unnecessary self-reference, but its only an annoyance as opposed to an actual problem

Section 8:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is actually a logical contradiction - given that an election could start at say 8 pm Thursday, then according to the first sentence, the candidacy declaration deadline is 8 pm Thursday the week before. However, the section in parentheses sets the candidacy declaration deadline at midnight Thursday the week before. God knows how the Court would bypass this absurdity, so I suggest we save them the hassle.

In order to alleviate this problem, please delete the parentheses in both clauses and then insert between "before the" and "commencement of the election" the words "earliest possible" in both clauses.

Section 10, Clause 3 of the Act refers to Section 12, where it should refer to Section 11 because of the effects of renumbering.

It would also be advisable to repeal all operative sections of previous electoral legislation.

[Peter]

Constitutional Amendment to Remove States

1.) The government of Atlasia reserves the power to remove states who have entered the union after December 31, 2003.
2.) The government of Atlasia also reserves the power to combine states following a simple majority vote of the citizens of that state

This has ambiguities - "government of Atlasia" is an amorphous concept as presented in the text - as you know our government is made up of three branches - were you planning to vest the power in one particular branch, or can the President simply kick Puerto Rico out by Executive Order?

Previous Amendments have included language such as "The Senate shall have power..." to clearly delegate such powers to the Senate. My only other quibble is that the Second Constitution always capitalised State, and for consistency I would like that retained.

[Peter]

Why in the name of Dave would we want to celebrate the Mexican Flag?

[Peter]

Why in the name of Dave would we want to celebrate the Mexican Flag?

To show solidarity with the Mexican invasion of undocumented workers.

You are a HP.