NORTHEAST Pornography and Age of Consent Act Vote

[Hatman 🍁]

The governor has instructed me to open voting on this act. It reads as follows:

"Section 1: Right to pornography

All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to buy, possess and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older.

Section 2: Right to engage in sexual relations

All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older.
All those laws outlawing particular sexual conducts based on the number of persons engaged in the conduct are hereby repealed.
All those laws outlawing particular sexual conducts based on the sex, sexuality, marital status, race, religion, ancestry or nationality of those engaged in the conduct are hereby repealed.

Section 3: Additions to Rape definitions

Any person of 16 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 12 years of age or younger is guilty of statutory rape.
Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape.

Section 4: Co-operation with Federal Authorities

All Northeast law enforcement agencies shall co-operate fully with Federal authorities empowered to pursue investigations pursuant to Sections 1 through 8 of the Anti-Opebo Act."

Voting begins July 18 at 11:59pm and closes July 25 at 11:59pm

Only citizens of the Northeast Region (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey) may vote.

Vote aye if you are in favour or nay if you are against.

[Hatman 🍁]

I vote aye

[King]

I vote Aye

[Speed of Sound]

i vote Aye

[Colin]

Aye

[KEmperor]

This law is contradictory, I abstain.

[Max Power]

Aye.

[Defarge]

aye

[Keystone Phil]

Nay

[Middle-aged Europe]

Abstain

[Hatman 🍁]

I declare this motion passed, with six votes for, one against and two abstainations.

It is now time for the governor to give consent to this statute.

[MAS117]

The Office of Governor MAS117

After consultation with my circle of advisors and the Chief Judicial Officer of the region who ensures me while he does not agree with this action, it is in fact legal, and by the power invested in me by Article IV, Section III of the Northeastern Constitution, I hereby excerise my right to use the Line Item Veto and Veto section Section II, Clause I of the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act, while I sign into law the rest of the Act.


x Governor MAS117


My reason for vetoed said clause of this act, is because it is very contradictory as pointed out by SCOTUS Chief Justice KEmperor of New York. Why would we say "All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older." and then come back and say later on "Any person of 16 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 12 years of age or younger is guilty of statutory rape." As you know no clause in a act supercedes another clause, therefore this is contradictory, and that is my explaination into the use of the Line Item Veto. Thank you.

[Hatman 🍁]

I would like to go on the record by saying that, I feel that the second "contradictory" clause would have been just an exception to the clause it is said to contradict. I think the people of the Northeast feel the same way.

"All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."

is said to contradict

"Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape."

However, I see the second part as merely an exception to the first.

[12th Doctor]

Ummmm... Don't sections 2 and 3 contradict each other?  2 says that all persons 16 years or older are permitted, with all people.  Section 3 then says that any person 21 years of age, engaging in sexual activity with any person younger than 17 is breaking the law.

[12th Doctor]

I would like to go on the record by saying that, I feel that the second "contradictory" clause would have been just an exception to the clause it is said to contradict. I think the people of the Northeast feel the same way.

I certainly don't feel that way.

[MAS117]

Ummmm... Don't sections 2 and 3 contradict each other?  2 says that all persons 16 years or older are permitted, with all people.  Section 3 then says that any person 21 years of age, engaging in sexual activity with any person younger than 17 is breaking the law.

They do, which is why I vetoed it.

[12th Doctor]

Ummmm... Don't sections 2 and 3 contradict each other?  2 says that all persons 16 years or older are permitted, with all people.  Section 3 then says that any person 21 years of age, engaging in sexual activity with any person younger than 17 is breaking the law.

They do, which is why I vetoed it.

Oh, I thought you signed it.  Well done, govnah

[Speed of Sound]

Ummmm... Don't sections 2 and 3 contradict each other?  2 says that all persons 16 years or older are permitted, with all people.  Section 3 then says that any person 21 years of age, engaging in sexual activity with any person younger than 17 is breaking the law.

wow. i didnt see that. that is one hell of a typo.

[MAS117]

Ummmm... Don't sections 2 and 3 contradict each other?  2 says that all persons 16 years or older are permitted, with all people.  Section 3 then says that any person 21 years of age, engaging in sexual activity with any person younger than 17 is breaking the law.

They do, which is why I vetoed it.

Oh, I thought you signed it.  Well done, govnah

Just read my damn statement Super, lol.

[Hatman 🍁]

I would like to go on the record by saying that, I feel that the second "contradictory" clause would have been just an exception to the clause it is said to contradict. I think the people of the Northeast feel the same way.

I certainly don't feel that way.

Well, I was going by the near unanimity of the vote. I would agree that perhaps the statute in question should be more clear on the subject.

[KEmperor]

Ummmm... Don't sections 2 and 3 contradict each other?  2 says that all persons 16 years or older are permitted, with all people.  Section 3 then says that any person 21 years of age, engaging in sexual activity with any person younger than 17 is breaking the law.

Yes, that was my whole point.  Luckily I was able to convince the Governor of that.

[Peter]

A line item veto for non-tax/spending provisions of a bill? Thats got to be the most expansive set of powers given to an executive outside of the dictatorships.

I've actually checked the Northeast Constitution and this "Line Item Veto" is in fact a fiction.

[KEmperor]

A line item veto for non-tax/spending provisions of a bill? Thats got to be the most expansive set of powers given to an executive outside of the dictatorships.

I've actually checked the Northeast Constitution and this "Line Item Veto" is in fact a fiction.

Sigh, yeah.  I know.

[MAS117]

A line item veto for non-tax/spending provisions of a bill? Thats got to be the most expansive set of powers given to an executive outside of the dictatorships.

I've actually checked the Northeast Constitution and this "Line Item Veto" is in fact a fiction.

The constitution of the Northeast is rather vague and does not give specific veto powers that the Governor has or does not have. I checked with the Chief Judicial Officer of the region and he concurred with my findings.

[Peter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course the above section implies a line item veto.

If people can't be bothered to read the laws they are voting on, then it does not excuse suspending the rule of law.