SR 110-07: The Don't Violate the Terms of Service Amendment (Failed)

[Joseph Cao]

I get the ex post facto problem and agree with it from a purely philosophical point of view but in view of the gentleman from Hawaii's original motivation for the bill which, if I recall previous convos correctly, was in response to bills that were proposed fairly recently, I think the cutoff of June 1 is fine if we have to settle for retroactive enforcement.

Anyhow, the PPT or Deputy should be informed that the objection is still on the floor.

[Joseph Cao]

I get the ex post facto problem and agree with it from a purely philosophical point of view but in view of the gentleman from Hawaii's original motivation for the bill which, if I recall previous convos correctly, was in response to bills that were proposed fairly recently, I think the cutoff of June 1 is fine if we have to settle for retroactive enforcement.

Anyhow, the PPT or Deputy should be informed that the objection is still on the floor.

There were 2 southern laws in question that were modded. Weve addressed 1 in a subsequent bill and have a pending bill that repeals the 2nd. It will be a dead issue in a week or so, so Im against arbitrarily declaring that like a hundred existing laws could hypothetically still be cancelled based on unforeseen partisan chicanery. There is no legitimate reason in my mind to make this retroactive even a day other than to target the South ex post facto and encourage false reporting by hacks. Poor Yankee shouldnt have to go back in time a hundred laws based on late reports by hacks who couldnt be bothered to read bills when they were on the floor and now want to pout by making dumb reports. June is extremely arbitrary and I think having it apply once ratified rather than months prior is fair and reasonable.

Yeah, if it’s about to become a dead issue (and certainly will be by the time this gets out of the Senate) I maintain the position where I was previously absent the extraordinary circumstances that pryor alluded to. Then again I don’t get a vote here.

[Joseph Cao]

Due to the controversial nature of this bill and its impracticality, I motion to table this legislation.

As there may be posts in this thread that I haven't seen for laggy laptop reasons, would anyone like to fill me in on whether the tabling motion has been seconded? Would be a shame to have started this vote for nothing.