Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Gabu]

I would suggest that everyone just stop posting here.  This is the thread to talk about introduced legislation before it comes up for debate.  If you're not talking about that, take it elsewhere.  Let's not clog up this one.

[Gabu]

Senate Procedure Resolution on Introduced Legislation
§1.  The Senate of Atlasia shall form a 3-person Senate Committee on Introduced Legislation.

§2.  Before a bill shall be allowed to be put to a vote, the Committee shall be required to approve of the legislation.

§3.  The Committee shall have the power to amend the bills for the purpose of keeping the legislation Constitutional, original*, and grammatically suitable for legislative action.

§4.  If a proposal is urgent, the President Pro Tempore or President of the Senate shall have the power to suspend the rules and send the bill directly to a vote.

Footnotes
* The term original shall be defined as not including laws or appropriating funds already similar or equal to that of existing law.

While I understand the purpose for this, I have two problems with sections 1, 2, and 3 of this legislation:

1. This introduces more bureaucracy and hoops that we must jump through before we're able to do our job.  I would personally prefer to keep the process involving as few steps as is necessary.

2. I really don't like the fact that three people would be able to effectively kill any legislation that they want.  This seems entirely undemocratic and contrary to what the Senate is supposed to be for: a place where any ideas can be brought to the floor, discussed, and then voted on.  I don't like the thought of having three people who are able to say "no, you can't discuss this".

I recognize that this is intended to speed up the Senate's workings by tossing out pointless legislation, but given that we have resolutions in place that allow for a vote after only twenty-four hours, I don't really think anything along these lines is necessary.  It seems too open to abuse; the potential good does not outweight the potential bad, in my opinion.

[Gabu]

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.

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.

[Gabu]

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.

I plan to get through as much as we can; I don't see why having only 10 days left is a reason to simply halt everything.  Obviously we're not going to get through everything, but we might as well see what we can do.

[Gabu]

I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.

Thanks, Senator. Good to see something will be done.

I'd reintroduce it if no one else did.  The Pacific welcomes New Mexico!

[Gabu]

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

I plan on making another one.

[Gabu]

As requested of me by former Senator Bono, I will introduce two Amendments to the Constitution (in separate posts) that he has asked me to introduce.

If there are any problems or changes with either of these, Bono, please let me know and I will do so.  I have modified the wording very slightly to make it sound in keeping with the rest of the document.
Addition to the Bill of Rights, Article VI

16.  Each individual shall have the inherent Right of defending the life, liberty and property of any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever means available, including the use of deadly force.

The vague wording of this makes it seem kind of dangerous in my eyes.  What's to stop someone from murdering someone else and then just saying, "Well, I was defending my liberty"?

[Gabu]

Forestry (Sustainable Development) Bill

For every tree cut down by a company, co-operative or individual working in the forestry industry, that company, co-operative or individual must plant two or more trees in the same forest or other woodland environment

Good bill, Al.  Though I'd recommend stating that the newly planted trees must be protected for a certain length of time after planting.  Otherwise the same individuals will just cut down the new ones as soon as they've planted them, and so on, and the whole thing becomes a giant mess.

Hmm, this will probably lead to Bono v. Atlasia III.

We need to abolish the courts.

[Gabu]

Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.

On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs. 

That's why i was wondering.

Emsworth is by far the most active VP we've had so far, and when I was PPT, he routinely took action so fast that I never had a chance to do a thing.

[Gabu]

nobody got anything to protest about or analyse?

I'll protest and analyze you.

[Gabu]

I'm aware that I'm prohibited from using the Senate Legislative Introduction Thread as I'm not yet a sitting Senator

However, can someone confirm for me whether this thread is the place for me to comment or make suggestions -as a Citizen re-current Senate Debate or do I use the appropriate thread as a Citizen for designated for any particular legislation? For example, were I to make a suggestion on the Tennessee Valley Authority Privatisation Act

I just thought I'd ask with this thread being inactive of late

Thanks

Dave (currently trawlling his way through wads and wads of Atlasia stuff )

Techinically speaking, this is the thread to use until the legislation is on the floor, at which point you use the legislation's private thread.

Practically speaking, however, you can basically just talk about it wherever.  Restrictions are not followed religiously, if at all.

[Gabu]

If absolutely all else is equal, then yes, I would agree that having a male and a female is probably better than not having one gender present.

However, in the real world, there is never a case where "all else is equal".  A child will most assuredly turn out better in a family of two loving males than in a family of a male and a female who don't give a damn.  There are so many other factors that affect a child's development that it really is rather silly to ignore all of the others in lieu of barring homosexual couples.  Allowing homosexual couples to adopt does not mean that they will be given first dibs on every child.

[Gabu]

I don't know. According to the Constitution (Art 1, s1) in the absence of the VP, the PPT becomes President of the Senate. Absence is undefined in the document.

Although, right now, the PPT, when elected, is pretty much the de facto president of the Senate right now, and it's the VP who acts in the PPT's absence, rather than the other way around.

[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.

[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.