SENATE BILL: The Public means Public Act (Redraft Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This text would require us to leave them in the parks if they insist on staying, Alfred.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This bill would require us to leave on the grounds of Steamtown if they insist, which for safety reasons would obviously shut the place down. The NE also has a homeless statute, though ours is better.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This text would require us to leave them in the parks if they insist on staying, Alfred.

I think you have a right to stay in a park, but I suppose we could amend the bill so that people who aren't quite right in the head can be coerced into apartments if they live in regions that have constructed such programs.

And the NE is basically by definition better than you .

Yes, everyone is free to go to a park if they want but they should be required to follow any rules established by the park so as to provide for fair usage by all. That is exactly my point, the present text requires the they allowed to established a domacile on the premises and forbids any rules against such by fiat of the federal gov't. In a region that has as program such as ours, that is frankly ridiculous.

Our homeless statute is better. And we have Scott as our Regional Executive now, deal with it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This text would require us to leave them in the parks if they insist on staying, Alfred.

I think you have a right to stay in a park, but I suppose we could amend the bill so that people who aren't quite right in the head can be coerced into apartments if they live in regions that have constructed such programs.

And the NE is basically by definition better than you .

Yes, everyone is free to go to a park if they want but they should be required to follow any rules established by the park so as to provide for fair usage by all. That is exactly my point, the present text requires the they allowed to established a domacile on the premises and forbids any rules against such by fiat of the federal gov't. In a region that has as program such as ours, that is frankly ridiculous.

Our homeless statute is better. And we have Scott as our Regional Executive now, deal with it.

At least we didn't nick ours from Utah

Plus, our homeless statute was drafted by the coolest atlasian.

IT could probably stand to be updated though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you think we could cut out all the dilly-dallying and just enact a federal version of the IDS/NE plans right here, right now, in this room, no holds barred? Keeping most of section 1 and all of section 2, of course.

What is the $5 billion we are giving to the regions for? We need to make sure that we specify it must be used on housing projects.

And don't be stubborn over section 1 and 2, or this bill won't even become law. I want to expand housing projects, but not at the expense of public safety and health. We can easily appropriate money to the regions to be used for housing projects and nothing else to the regions.

Don't worry, Mr. President, everything's fine. By "sections 1 and 2" I meant of the entire bill (i.e. cars and stuff).

And Maxwell, I'd rather have all the homeless housed than have strong regions, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Unless I am mistaken that would require a subsequent amendment, the text clearly applies only to cclauses 1 and 2. Though I might be mistaken as what you are saying there.

Why the hell do we need choose between strong regions and housing the homeless? Are there not enough lefties to ensure a good bill gets passed in the Pacific and Midwest? Riley is a reasonable guy and I am sure if he has a proposal that is solid, he stands a good chnace of passing that in the Mideast as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm indifferent about whether we need a federal policy. I'd prefer we just appropriate money to the regions and allow them to design their own policy, but I certainly won't veto a bill that legislates from the federal level either.

I just think if we give the regions money to implement a housing program, they can do it on their own. They're adults too, ya know?

I'm sure all regions are capable of designing excellent policies, and they all should. I just don't plan on waiting until they do.

Why wait? Shouldn't Governor's DemPGH, Windjammer and Riley have every interest to get the jump on this issue?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I frankly don't think that we should sit around and wait until the regions can implement a proper solution. If regions are "better equipped" to deal with this sort of thing (and I don't doubt that more local governments are better at dealing with more local issues, since we can hardly legislate every little thing from up on high), then they can go ahead and fill in the details, but we, as a federal legislative body, need to ensure that we do every single thing in our power to bridge the gap. I've said this before, but I don't much care for the idea that we need to defer to regional authority completely. Regions (or whatever smaller deliberative body that may exist in their place) are part of the process, but I will not allow regions to completely dictate the process when we are talking about the needs of the many.

Now, if we are worried that National Parks will become Hoovertowns, I think that is a legitimate worry, and I didn't want my support for sheltering all Atlasians to be interpreted as some desire to see tents all over our national landmarks. But I would rather have people using Old Faithful as a shower (if that particular person likes Sulfur burns) than suffering the worst of homelessness. Hopefully, we can achieve a solution where we see neither.

That is not only dangerous to those who take up residence ther,e but also likely to damage the environment by disrupting the natural habitats and so forth. There is no reasonable justification for us to eat this kind of sacrifice when we have solutions before and there is no reason for the IDS to be forced to be so sacrificed when we have taken care of the responsbility already. At the very least the IDS should be exempt and the NE as well.

Nay - public is public, and that applies to regions as well.

Yes and a community that is built on tourism should be able to make decisions for themselves on that regard and differently from one that isn't. I highlight doubt a simple majority in Nyman can best tell them how their public space is to be regulated when we don't have to consider their economic needs for one as well as others.

Call me crazy, but I think you shouldn't be banned from a certain place because your needs are less important than other people's wants.

Indeed.

Even if what you define as a want is a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people? Sounds like a great way to create more homeless people if you ask me. Why are we forcing communities to have to eat a loss of money and jobs potentially, when two of our regions are now providing for this problem in a far more effective manner and another section of this bill further facilitates that effort.

Because, simply, there are millions of homeless people in the other regions who deserve homes just as much. 60% of homeless people suddenly getting homes just means that we need to direct our efforts to getting that remaining 40% off the streets.

Yankee, I'm not sure what your question about my voting record on smoking bans was, but I'd be glad to clarify my position if you could clarify your question . But, I'll be honest, my "Indeed" was only snarkiness, not an attempt to make a full-fledged argument.

Shua also brings up an interesting point that there's no precedent for the federal government essentially deleting regional legislation off the books. We would need to explicitly ban things, not make a blanket repeal of regional law, because I don't believe that is constitutional (it might be, but it would have to be pretty convoluted). Technically, the federal government does have the power to override regional law, but I think it has to be explicit.

The first paragraph about 60% and 40% does not justify a job loss that is unnecessary.

It was stated that needs of some are more importance than the wants of others. Surely smoking in public is a want at the expanse of the needs of those desiring to breath clean air. I was merely asking whether you voted in favor of making it impossible for localities to enact public smoking bans.

Shua may be right but I would be hessitant to take a risk in that fashion with supremacy being the powerfull thing that it is and the Constitution in this game being different from that of the RL document in certain ways.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment appears to have been adopted unless I missed an objection.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It certainly sets a dangerous precedent that the Senate might annul regional law without judicial recourse.

Theoretically the regions would be protected so that those powers which are theres, they cannot be overriden. However, there are not set areas where the Regions have exclusive authority or at the very least they are not clearly understand by I think most of the players. And I know you guys like to throw around Regional budgets as an example of what Regions can and should be doing, but budgets are not things unto themselves but merely a collection, or should I say, a list of things the Regions does and what amongst those items do they hold exclusive authority over? If it is not exclusively a regional thing, then the supremacy clause would cause all Federal laws to override regional laws when they do conflict, no?

Does this fall under one of the few items that the Region's hold exclusive jurisdiction over?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But I think this touches on one of the major game reform issues facing us today. It's virtually impossible to tell what counts as a federal or as a regional issue.

Our side would probably say that is because the Feds have take over so much of what the Regions should be doing.

Well your side might say that, but that answer exactly what the regions should be doing.

At this point, the best approach would be divide up areas of responsbility and then have a limited federal reboot in those areas. I am fully willing to have a discussion on which ones that should be in particular. Certainly regulations of the public space should be considered as close to locally as possible here so thingsl ike this or the smoking bans  would count.

I'm certainly willing to work with you to get something like that done. Would this need to be a constitutional amendment, because I know some of the regional/federal divide are specifically written in the constitution?

No I have not forgotten about this post. I just got delayed in responding to it.

I considered it some on Memorial DAy, but the nof course didn't get on the next day at all and didn't have much time last night. I figure that some of it could simply done by repealing certain laws and leaving or maybe encouraging regional action to fill those gaps, that would cover a signififcant amount of ground. Think like those omnibus repeal bills you have passed. Though getting them to be noticed is an issue.

For the rest and to some extent with the people noticing it problem, if we were to get a convention, it is something that could be addressed there obviously. Though my concern with a con-con is that if it lacks focus going in, chances are it won't produce anything.

There is also the concern that Tyrion have discussed over the past few days in this thread regarding the operation of supremacy on Regional laws that would have to be factored in with regards to determing whether a law or area of laws would need to be so repealed in order to facilitate this process.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay so where do we stand. We have to remove clauses 1 and 2 to get the President's support, correct?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What do you mean by that? I just want to ensure cities are not forbidden from keeping their streets clean and safe. I won't sign anything that restricts them or allows for panhandling and loitering all over this country.

I mean if a public space is open to people, it is open to homeless people as well.  If it is closed then it is still closed.  But if any city is going to try to restrict homeless people from entire sections of the city then that is discriminatory and a basic violation of rights. 

We are talking in terms of allowing people to establish a domacile (SP?) on public spaces. Of course they are allowed to visit these people like any other person, but the difference is that just like anyone else, they would present not be allowed to stay there permenently if such is presently a restriction. This bill would ban those restrictions.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's not "all over", it's only in the ME/MW/PA, and it wouldn't be if they enacted IDS/NE-style housing laws.

Didn't you need to offer another amendment regarding your previous one's use of the word clause instead of section. I would recommend moving the clause in that case to maybe create a third section on applicability staying the above do not apply those regions that done X.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's not "all over", it's only in the ME/MW/PA, and it wouldn't be if they enacted IDS/NE-style housing laws.

Didn't you need to offer another amendment regarding your previous one's use of the word clause instead of section. I would recommend moving the clause in that case to maybe create a third section on applicability staying the above do not apply those regions that done X.

If I said "Sections 1 and 2 do not apply to the IDS/NE", wouldn't that invalidate the whole bill for the IDS and NE? I think what everyone is calling "sections" here are more like clauses. I would be willing, however, to introduce an amendment to that effect (perhaps taking out the hateful parts of the bill, putting them in their own section, and then saying that section doesn't apply to  the IDS/NE)?

Okay now I am confused. Clauses 1 and 2 are the worst in my view if they are not limited, but the President also has issues with Section 2 so reorganization of the bill might be in order. I think.

What are you considering a section and what a clause herE?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Forget what I said about Duke and Section II, I was thinking of something else. For some reason I though there was a loitering clause in that as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just in case Alfred posting the original text as part of his example confused anyone.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would the opposition support a bill that allowed homeless people to sleep or whatever in municipally-administered parks (i.e., not state or federally administered parks)?

As long as such a standard does not apply to those regions that have responsible policies for the homeless.


You would have to ask the President what his thoughts are on the option, thoguh probably the same as before.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So what are we doing here?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So where does that leave us on this?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would you sign the bill as it is now if it were to pass?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well Senators, the President has stated his position, is there a path forward or should we just put this to a vote. WE have been on this a long time now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A Final vote is now open on the underlying legislation, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Man this vote is really lagging.

Reluctant Aye

We need the funding if nothing else. Duke can remove the stuff he finds objectionable in a redraft.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will try to get on later and close this vote, but unfortunatley I have to get off in mere minutes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. President?