2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Law'd)

[SPC]

As Lt. Governor of the Dirty South, I strongly urge all senators to vote against this bill.

[SPC]

As Lt. Governor of the Dirty South, I strongly urge all senators to vote against this bill.

I appreciate your lengthy and detailed imput. I'm terrified of the influence of your office.

So statesmen cannot give their opinions on legislation? Especially when they might be joining your chamber in two months?

[SPC]

Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion)

   a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler
   b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3
   c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars
   d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system
   e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months
   f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set

What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this?

[SPC]

Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion)

   a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler
   b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3
   c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars
   d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system
   e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months
   f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set

What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this?

What clause in the Constitution denies the Senate the Power to do this?

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 says this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, unless you can show me where the Senate is granted that power in the Constitution, they do not have it.

[SPC]

Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion)

   a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler
   b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3
   c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars
   d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system
   e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months
   f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set

What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this?

What clause in the Constitution denies the Senate the Power to do this?

I would suggest not feeding the lunatic. SPC also thinks regions should be able to have separate currencies.

I lost that in court. Unless you either omit that part of the legislation or give a constitutional justification, I intend to take this to court, and this time, I have a better case, since the constitution does not mention buying private companies.

[SPC]

I, Marokai Blue, do solemnly swear that I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave.

Relevant parts quoted.

[SPC]

Ostensibly the inter-state commerce clause (or the Atlasian equivalent) would allow that.

I checked Article 1 of the Constitution and couldn't find an interstate commerce clause.

[SPC]

Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion)

   a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler
   b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3
   c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars
   d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system
   e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months
   f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set

What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this?

What clause in the Constitution denies the Senate the Power to do this?

I would suggest not feeding the lunatic. SPC also thinks regions should be able to have separate currencies.

I lost that in court. Unless you either omit that part of the legislation or give a constitutional justification, I intend to take this to court, and this time, I have a better case, since the constitution does not mention buying private companies.

The Constitution doesn't mention a great number of things, feel free to take them all to court.

Knowing how busy the Justices' personal lives are, I do not wish to place that much stress on them. I will focus on one piece of legislation at a time.

[SPC]

the 22nd Amendment says this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't there a difference between regulating a company and taking over a company?

And don't section 2h and section 4 of this bill violate Article I, Section 6, Clause 7 of the Constitution?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SPC]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

[SPC]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

..Why?

Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion?

[SPC]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

..Why?

Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion?

Do you oppose giving an additional $1 billion toward Medicaid?

[SPC]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

..Why?

Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion?

Do you oppose giving an additional $1 billion toward Medicaid?

That's not the point. Your logic goes that if I support $100 billion, might as well support $101 billion or $102 billion or $105 billion or $110 billion or $150 billion, etc.

Unfortunately, without agencies or an active enough GM to provide exactly what amounts are needed for these things, it is up to the Senate to ballpark the figures.

I don't see how that is not valid. Could it be that the Senate has not ballparked enough money toward Medicaid?

[SPC]

Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful.

Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful?

[SPC]

Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful.

Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful?

Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise.

This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do.

Except it was not Mthe Senate at large who decided on $100 billion but the bill's sponsor. Should it be fair for the Senate at large to be able to vote on the amendment?

[SPC]

Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful.

Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful?

Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise.

This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do.

Except it was not Mthe Senate at large who decided on $100 billion but the bill's sponsor. Should it be fair for the Senate at large to be able to vote on the amendment?

If a senator is willing to sponsor it as an amendment, that would indicate that there is not unanimous consensus among the senators at $100 billion and it would presumably be appropriate to vote on it. The other issue is that such things are, I believe, simply attempts to slow down and stall the process, which is unacceptable and should be dismissed by the PPT as an inappropriate amendment.

So far only you and Marokai have commented on it. The whole Senate has not had the opportunity to see the amendment.

[SPC]

Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill.

Should someone introduce an amendment to strike it or replace it with the current healthcare system?

[SPC]

I hope this is not the sort of thing we should expect if you are so lucky as to be elected to the Senate.

How do you know that I was not genuinely concerned with Medicaid funding. Perhaps if I had not brought the issue up for debate, Maxque would not have noticed the section's flaw.