SENATE BILL: Regional Legislative...Authority Act of 2013 (Law'd/STR)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: sbane

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aside from Section 5, all this does is channel authority that is being thrown at us against our will. If that is legal, then so are those sections, if not then the whole issue is moot. They have the right to determine their legislative, they don't have the right to alter the express purpose of the legislative branch for the whole nation, as established in Article I.

As for Section 5, we have to find some means of assuring that regional Constitution's can't be unamendable, if not through legislation then through a constitutional amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

THink of it like this, if a the Senate can delegate its lawfull authority to agencies like the Fed, then there is no reason why the Senate can't establish a process to dispense with the Pacific's legislative resonsibilities (providing their delegating it to us is legal in the first place), the respects the intended purpose of the Senate present in the express terms of Article I.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Throughout Article one, the language makes it clear that legislative authority granted is that of the whole of Atlasia and thus to be forcibly vested with another authority by a Region is probably a violation of the spirit, if not the letter of Article One. It most certainly would violate the provisions of Article VII if the latter, without a doubt. But lets proceed with more concrete items:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If they are unorganized territories like they claim to be, we can vest their legislative authority into another process through the necessary and proper clause. The same way legislative authortiy has been vested in many institutions and arguably the legislatively created Departments.

If they are unorganized territories, ARticle 4 doesn't cover them. If they are a Region, then the following comes into effect in my opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 6 doesn't containe the same languaged "save where otherwise limited by the Constitution", which NC Yankee v. Atlasia turned on largely and thus isn't limited by Article 4, no?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

At most, Clause 7 of Section 5 should be rewritten or removed entirely, but considering the Pacific region vested all legislative power with the Senate of Atlasia, whatever the people of the Pacific and the Senate decide upon is what happens.

I would think Clause 1 is more problematic in terms of that. Clause 7 is just a sunset mechanism dependent on whatever action the Region takes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It may be flippant of me to say this, but I doubt that this will be necessary by the time the Court has had its say. I'm having difficulty analyzing how this legislation will apply without knowing whether they'll strike down the 'Final Constitution' entirely, in part, or not at all.

Can I assume that this legislation represents a contingency plan for dealing with the third situation only?

Yes, there is no other purpose for this legislation save for if another Region were to attempt it in the future, which I doubt will happen with this in place.

I support this besides the attempts to give legitimacy to a nonexistent governing document.

It is not our intention to give legitimacy in that fashion. If you have recommendations to remove that implication, I will be happy to look at them. I even included the word "alleged changes" in the act's preamble, but thought it too edgy and thus removed it. We could put "apparent" in its place and include a clause explicitly rejecting any judgement regarding the legality of said document:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have a vested interest in discouraging this going forward. From my reading of the "Final Constitution", the ratification shall be a mess for any amendments to the Atlasian Constitution. Were two Region's to do this, we would find the Atlasian Constitution rendered as much unamendable as they have apparently done to the Pacific's Constitution. We have a rather unimportant amendment with which to test it fortunately right now, thankfully.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm still struggling to conceptualize how all of this work legally, but assuming the Pacific Constitution is not struck down by the Court, I'd prefer to strip this bill own to two goals: Allowing Pacific citizens a fair chance to vote on federal amendments, and ensuring that their right to self-determination - including the right to amend their regional constitution, if desired - is protected.

That would still leave us legislating for the region and again, if legal to being with, we should not be placing ourselves in that position, as it compromises the legislative authority vested in us and deprives the Pacific of a regional legislative authority whose primary interests is the said region's constituents. I agree with the other points though. If you want to add a section about voting on Federal Amendments, feel free to compose a text on that matter.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I realize there are a lot of issues to be hashed out, but I think it would be appropriate so that we get this done by the the weekend that, to have all amendments finalized and offered by tomorrow if practical.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If we could bundle the amendments to some exent that would save some time, so start shooting PMs back and forth and try to see who wants what and that we can save time.

I hope to god the next post isn't my fourth in a row, because that would not be super special awesome, what ever that is.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I woul still like to preserve Section 3 and 4, unless and until the Court says that a Region can't give us their legislative authority. That question is not even been brought before the court at present, so I think we should maintain some kind of response to it.

Let me know what you think of my indea to incomporate your amendment into the bill text and maintain it as an amendment to the constitution, Nix.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We need a slight change to the preamble in your text to make this work:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are we missing any needed changes?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: None
Status: Waiting for Feedback

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: None
Status: Waiting for Feedback

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Existing Sections number six and above shall be renumbered seven and above accordingly
[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: None
Status: Waiting for Feedback

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

These will hopefully be adopted simultaenously. The italics serve to provide appopriate directions to their integration into the text, especialyl the last one. That way if the 29th fails an the 28th passes, the numbering of 28's new section will remain six, if 29 passed it becomes seven.

Also Nix, I fully agree with your points about the sevententh amendment. I wish I had gotten on last night but we keep having these flash heat storms that put the computer at risk and I don't want to lose it after fighting for months to get it back working.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay, let me respond more fully to this a bit later, but here is the gist: I have serious Constitutional concerns about Sections 1 and 4, and in other areas I think the Constitution already takes care of a lot of this. I can't go line-by-line now. But I think specific legislation, which is how this is written, dealing with the Pacific situation should be the last resort.

I advise the Senate to develop the basic guidelines that Nix alludes to because that gives us in the DoJ more concrete territory on which to not only operate but which to apply elsewhere.

Section 1 is a title? What could be unconstitutional about a bill title.

Section 4, just states that a Region can't devolve any other authority too use (the Final Constitution grants their legislative powers to use and then states "All other matters shall be exercised by Atlasian Senate"). In my opinion, both are unconsttutional grants because the altering of the Senat'es authority is a unconstitutioanl attempt to amend Article I and thus violates Aritcle VII. But we don't know what the court will rule on these matters and the specific issue of the legislative authority has not been raised and may not be raised at this juncture at all. In words of Scalia, "Some legal questions will never be answered because a conflcit of a legal nature may never arise concerning them". In that situation, or that of the ability of the Region to do this being upheld, the Senate should at least have its position stated in as statute. And I am confident I can defend the ability of the Senate to delegate any powers legally granted to it, though the necessary and proper clause.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Existing Sections number six and above shall be renumbered seven and above accordingly
[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

Edit: Amendment number on last amendment corrected, irrelevant other than for purposes of my records really. Though it helps if I get it right so that we can use their numbers as names in debate. I did this bill first instead of running through them all to check for amendments first, hence the issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, but rather then delaying the current amendments, I would just throw that in to a second round of amendments.

What threshold is preferable, if any? 1/3? 10%?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay, let me respond more fully to this a bit later, but here is the gist: I have serious Constitutional concerns about Sections 1 and 4, and in other areas I think the Constitution already takes care of a lot of this. I can't go line-by-line now. But I think specific legislation, which is how this is written, dealing with the Pacific situation should be the last resort.

I advise the Senate to develop the basic guidelines that Nix alludes to because that gives us in the DoJ more concrete territory on which to not only operate but which to apply elsewhere.

Section 1 is a title? What could be unconstitutional about a bill title.

Section 4, just states that a Region can't devolve any other authority too use (the Final Constitution grants their legislative powers to use and then states "All other matters shall be exercised by Atlasian Senate"). In my opinion, both are unconsttutional grants because the altering of the Senat'es authority is a unconstitutioanl attempt to amend Article I and thus violates Aritcle VII. But we don't know what the court will rule on these matters and the specific issue of the legislative authority has not been raised and may not be raised at this juncture at all. In words of Scalia, "Some legal questions will never be answered because a conflcit of a legal nature may never arise concerning them". In that situation, or that of the ability of the Region to do this being upheld, the Senate should at least have its position stated in as statute. And I am confident I can defend the ability of the Senate to delegate any powers legally granted to it, though the necessary and proper clause.

Meant section 2, sorry. No, I fully support the principle behind the bill, and normally I would have no trouble with delegating back to the region, but I just think you have to be careful about how you do that. What you don't want to do is require regions to have or to use branches of government, because they don't have to.

I agree with tightening the 17th amendment as well, although one second to vote is not Constitutional, IMO. Can we just say at least that no court in "real life" would let something like stand? It's disenfranchisement.

Well keep in mind that all of this is made conditional on the region's having delegated its legislative authority to us. So if they can do whatever they can use whatever structure they prefer, unless and an until they leave it at our doorstep. Then they get and initiative proceess.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendments have about two hours left, but the storms will probably drive me off before then.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Lost power for six hours. DAMN IT!!!


The amendments have been adopted.

I will compose a current text so we can see where we are.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 6: Ratification Amendment
AN AMENDMENT

To guarantee that the process for amending the Atlasian Constitution remains open and democratic, the following amendment is passed by the Senate and sent to the regions for ratification.

1. The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed.

2. Article VII, Section 1, shall be restored to its earlier text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 7: Legality of Pacific Constitution
1. Nothing in this act shall be construed as any admission of or advocacy for the legality of the "Final Constitution" of the Pacific, or any part thereof.
[/quote]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm concerned about giving the President authority to appoint someone. It would be better to designate the SoFE already confirmed by the Senate.

Would you go for assigning the power to the Regional Senator, as Section 5 did prior to being changed into an Amendment and Section 3 still does?

That way it is someone who carries the authority of the Region.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you care to share why? A regional senator is a elected by the Region in question and thus carries that authority of having been elected by the people who are to be effected.


Also, I will need a text to be composed effecting that change if you plan to pursue. If You could always take the one I composed, eliminate the words between the bolded code and replace them so with your preferred ones.

Either way, I think we should eliminate the President's responsibility in Section 5.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you care to share why? A regional senator is a elected by the Region in question and thus carries that authority of having been elected by the people who are to be effected.

That's true, I just don't think Senators should be given responsibilities outside of the Senate, you know? Would you support giving it to the SoFE?

Outside the Senate? You don't say!

I think I'd be more open to merging the Senate and Cabinet, and holding elections every two months for all seats on a party list system. Basically a psuedo-parliamentary system. We could still find a way to incorporate the regions, but balance them with population. Reapportioning could take place every six months or so.

I would prefer the Regional SEnator because he is elected by the peopel in question, but anything is better then the President appointing another Xahar.

Keep in mind that Xahar could just as easily be appointed by a President as SoFE and then be waived through a confirmation hearing, only to effect the same kind of thing. In my experience the Senate has been rather inneffective at stopping bad nominess save for the most obvious cases like a BK. (I would cite KP as AG, you would probably cite Adam Griffin as GM).