SB 2018-177: Transparency is a Right Act (Passed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Passed 7-0 in the Atlasian House Assembled,

[/quote]

Sponsor: Not_Madigan, Pericles

     I hereby open the floor for debate.

[_]

I'll gladly sponsor this bill.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Senators have 24 hours to object to Senator Not_Madigan assuming sponsorship of the bill.

[Pericles]

I wish to sponsor.

[Lumine]

Needless to say I will be enthusiasically voting in favor of this.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

This is an excellent bill that is necessary to protect transparency in our governing.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With no objections, Senator Not_Madigan is the sponsor. Senator Pericles can be co-sponsor if Senator Not_Madigan is fine with it. Both Senators are invited to speak in favor of the bill.

[_]

I'd be fine with Senator Pericles as a co-sponsor.

In regards to the Bill, I am fully supportive of this as it will ensure complete transparency of elected officials, and make sure every Atlasian can see how their Representative and Senator vote.  I also fully support the urging of Regional Legislatures to go through with the same process, and I hope all regions pass a bill similar to this as soon as possible.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Are there any other comments on this bill? A majority of the Senate has responded, though the bill is still quite young in its cycle.

[_]

I think the Senate is pretty unanimously in support of the Bill, and I'd like to motion for a vote if there's no objections.

[Lumine]

Actually, I think we're missing something. What exactly is the punishment? We say officeholders "must" comply, but I'm not sure if the consequences are clear here given the current case before the Supreme Court.

Perhaps we might add a clause regarding officeholders who break this particular bill should be considered as having grounds to be impeached or charged with a crime?

[_]

Actually, I think we're missing something. What exactly is the punishment? We say officeholders "must" comply, but I'm not sure if the consequences are clear here given the current case before the Supreme Court.

Perhaps we might add a clause regarding officeholders who break this particular bill should be considered as having grounds to be impeached or charged with a crime?

Perhaps punishment can be that if they break the bill they should immediately be put to a special election?  That way the people can be the jury and decide the lawmaker's fate?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Actually, I think we're missing something. What exactly is the punishment? We say officeholders "must" comply, but I'm not sure if the consequences are clear here given the current case before the Supreme Court.

Perhaps we might add a clause regarding officeholders who break this particular bill should be considered as having grounds to be impeached or charged with a crime?

Perhaps punishment can be that if they break the bill they should immediately be put to a special election?  That way the people can be the jury and decide the lawmaker's fate?

I feel like requiring a special election might require a constitutional amendment. Lets just make it a class 1 misdemeanor and proceed to a final vote to clear the floor.

[fhtagn]

Actually, I think we're missing something. What exactly is the punishment? We say officeholders "must" comply, but I'm not sure if the consequences are clear here given the current case before the Supreme Court.

Perhaps we might add a clause regarding officeholders who break this particular bill should be considered as having grounds to be impeached or charged with a crime?

Perhaps punishment can be that if they break the bill they should immediately be put to a special election?  That way the people can be the jury and decide the lawmaker's fate?

I feel like requiring a special election might require a constitutional amendment. Lets just make it a class 1 misdemeanor and proceed to a final vote to clear the floor.

But how exactly would thay apply in game in the event someone is found guilty of it?

I personally think dismissal from the position would be a fair punishment for violating it. They'd be more than welcome to run again another time, they would just lose their seniority and their position (if they were Speaker/PPT/Deputies of each).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Are we permanently ruling out another Joint Session of Congress, then? Because this bill as written would make such practically impossible to organize, even if all motions and votes were posted on the forum (as the text mandates they must be made on the forum "alone," and so not in two places simultaneously).

I would also urge the Senate to offer a definition for what constitutes a formal "motion." It seems to me it would be very easy to misconstrue someone asking on Discord if/when a vote will be held as moving for such a vote, and if we're going to be throwing people out of office over this, the parameters of the offense ought to be very clear.

Finally, I would question the constitutionality of enacting this as a provision of federal Law rather than as an amendment to the Senate Rules. Under Article III, both Houses have the exclusive right to determine their own methods of proceeding; this bill amounts to the executive and the Senate mandating that the House conduct business in a certain way (and from the opposite perspective, the executive and the House mandating that the Senate conduct business in a certain way). I don't think any of these provisions would be inoperable as part of the House/Senate rules (I'd argue an expulsion provision would be on firmer constitutional ground in that context), but the distinction is important.

[Pericles]

I support this legislation. Following the Discord episode, we need to make clear requirements to ensure the governance of Atlasia is done in a transparent manner. This is a reasonable reform that ensures we do have transparency, as while what happened in the Lincoln assembly was not illegal in my opinion, it was far too gray of an area and this clears up that issue. This isn't a partisan issue, and transparency shouldn't be a partisan issue. This is a good bill and should pass unanimously.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Are we permanently ruling out another Joint Session of Congress, then? Because this bill as written would make such practically impossible to organize, even if all motions and votes were posted on the forum (as the text mandates they must be made on the forum "alone," and so not in two places simultaneously).

I would also urge the Senate to offer a definition for what constitutes a formal "motion." It seems to me it would be very easy to misconstrue someone asking on Discord if/when a vote will be held as moving for such a vote, and if we're going to be throwing people out of office over this, the parameters of the offense ought to be very clear.

Finally, I would question the constitutionality of enacting this as a provision of federal Law rather than as an amendment to the Senate Rules. Under Article III, both Houses have the exclusive right to determine their own methods of proceeding; this bill amounts to the executive and the Senate mandating that the House conduct business in a certain way (and from the opposite perspective, the executive and the House mandating that the Senate conduct business in a certain way). I don't think any of these provisions would be inoperable as part of the House/Senate rules (I'd argue an expulsion provision would be on firmer constitutional ground in that context), but the distinction is important.

     This post makes good points. Would the sponsor or any other Senator like to respond?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Truman makes a good point about the constitutionality and unlike some I prefer to listen to the father of the Constitution.

[Lumine]

I've been pondering on it for some time and I'll propose an amendment to address points one and two by Truman. I'm not sure why there's a constitutional dilemma, though, and I think we should do both for a firmer set of guidelines. Besides passing this, I would also urge the Senate and the House (I'm considering a reform of the Senate rules myself) to pass their own reform to their rules to reflect the necessity of avoiding further discord episodes.

Thus, I propose:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm not sure why there's a constitutional dilemma, though, and I think we should do both for a firmer set of guidelines.

As I see it, the Constitution gives each House the power to determine their own methods of proceeding—independent of any other authority. If this bill were to become Law, however, the Senate would no longer be able to decide to meet on Discord* without the House passing and the president signing a repeal bill. Basically, the president and one house of Congress would be preventing the other from deciding where and how to go about their business—which rather undermines the constitutional provision that the Senate alone make that decision.

Otherwise, I support the amendments you have introduced as very reasonable changes to the original bill.

*Please note I don't advocate for this as a matter of course, but part of free government is the freedom to make bad decisions.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Status: Awaiting sponsor feedback
Sponsor feedback: Pending

[_]

I fully approve of this amendment

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With no objections the amendment is adopted.

[_]

If there are no further objections or concerns, I'd like to move to a final vote.