Mideast Assembly Thread

[Peter]

I bring the following legislation to the floor for discussion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whilst I agree that an amendment to the Law is needed, I think rewriting our Laws to be more focused on the intent of the voter is more desirable to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Would you like me to write something?

[Peter]

Voting Intent Statute
Section 1
1. In certifying the result the voting booth administrator shall list all those votes which he or she has discounted, and the reasons for these votes being discounted. The voting booth administrator shall discount all votes that are invalid under the law, and shall only count those remaining votes for which he or she is able to make a reasonable determination as to the intent of the voter subject to such conditions as imposed by the rest of this Act.
2. Where a voter lists all candidates running in an election and places some mark to the right or left of one and only one of the candidates or tickets, then the vote shall be construed to be for that candidate or ticket.
3. In elections allowing preferencing of candidates, if no numbering of the preferences is stated, and no other marks signalling intent are made, then the candidate at the top of the list shall be presumed to be the first preference, the candidate on the second line of the list shall be presumed to be the second preference, and so on.
4. The enumeration of certain reasonable determinations of intent in this section shall not be construed to be exclusive.

Section 2
The following statutes and sections of statutes shall expire 2 months from the date of passage of this statute:
*Mideast Election and Vote Regulations Statute
*Mideast Gubernatorial Election Statute
*Mideast Second Election and Vote Regulations Statute
*Section 1 of this Act
The intent of Section 2 is to force the reconsideration of all Mideast electoral law, and thus ensure that it is fully up to date with our present circumstances.

[Peter]

What happens once everything has expired? We rewrite the law completely?

Well, the idea would be to rewrite it before it expires so  that we have something to implement when they do expire.

In addition to what Inks has said - I feel that one of the problems with our electoral laws is that whilst we all recognise there are niggling issues with the Laws, it is often the case that we do not get around to actually doing anything about them because the issue lapses within a week or two of the crisis. This bill will keep the issue on the agenda, rather than being a plaster that will eventually fall off. I also feel strongly that distilling all electoral law into one statute would aid voting booth admins because it would give them one point of reference as opposed to 4 or 5.

[Peter]

aye

[Peter]

I hereby nominate Purple State to be Speaker of this Assembly.

[Peter]

I would like to welcome Afleitch to the Assembly as our newest member.

Peter, does your motion still stand?

Absolutely. I have no interest in the role and I dislike nominating appointed members to the post of Speaker.

[Peter]

My principal issue with the bill as presently written is that it is entirely possible for somebody to post "harmful statements" that are completely true, and then be convicted of libel/slander. I feel that there needs to be a requirement that the statements are false and that the poster knew (or was reasonably likely to know) that the statements are false.

[Peter]

The other thing that immediately springs to my mind is how do we determine if a crime has been commited in the Mideast Region?

[Peter]

Aye

[Peter]

I am happy to vote for your Amendment as presently written given that there is already an override provision in the Constitution.

I would also like to propose the following bill:

Statute Repeal Bill
1. The Mideast Voter Information Statute is repealed
2. The Mideast Civil Partnership Statute is repealed
The first has, to my knowledge, never been followed. The second is grossly unconstitutional. I do not believe either have been repealed before (the wiki doesn't think so)

[Peter]

Aye to both bills 2 posts above this one.

[Peter]

No objection

[Peter]

Nay. I've never liked the 20 minute rule.

[Peter]

Clause 3 - what if nobody is ever found guilty of the crime? This is especially true if, for example, a bank robber kills an innocent bystander before being killed by a SWAT team himself. Nobody will ever be sentenced, but there is doubtless a case for compensation under the spirit of this act.

I would have to recommend that compensation is determined by some tribunal, part of whose remit it is to determine that the injury is the result of some crime.

[Peter]

Aye to both bills

[Peter]

I will say the bill passes unanimously with three in favor and naught opposed. The Mideast Victim Compensation Act is presented to the Governor for his signature.

Sorry, when you said "Let's finish this", I took that to mean that the vote was open.

Sadly the Mideast Gun Safety Bill would violate both the Regional and Federal Constitutions. I must therefore vote against it.

[Peter]

Again, I would dearly love to vote in favour of the Amendment, however, my feeling is that the federal Constitution will not allow such a bill to pass. See the Debate on the Amendment as it was proposed in the Senate.

At the time I was against the Amendment, and I strongly voiced, as did others, that grenades and mortars were probably covered by the clause, but that intent was unclear.

I also feel that provisions of Section 2 constitute an unreasonable search of the person seeking to buy the weapon. A fingerprint registry of the nation is in my view highly undesirable on policy grounds, and probably unconstitutional on legal grounds - these people have done nothing illegal, and therefore should not have their fingerprints stored ad infinitum just because they bought a gun - this is treatment we only subject criminals too.

[Peter]

Apologies for not seeing this sooner.

Nay on relocating hte capital

[Peter]

As Dean of this Assembly, I hereby assume the Chair to preside over the election of a Speaker.

I will state that I have no particular desire to serve longer term, but will do so if asked.

I call for nominations!

[Peter]

In which case I accept, and will declare myself elected by acclamation.

I call on members to submit business for this Assembly.

[Peter]

I think any proposal which would cause the removal of an Assembly member will need to be a Constitutional Amendment.

[Peter]

EDIT: Also, Roe v. Wade would have to be overturned by the court for this to be valid (unless there's been a more recent case in Atlasia).

The precedent has been largely ignored in Atlasia, and nobody has ever gone to court to attempt to enforce it.

I cannot support a total ban.

I am happy with the existing consensus of the Abortion Statute, however, I am willing to work to achieve the best possible outcome.

My view on Dan's bill is that we should not tie a parental consent requirement to a general tightening of the time limit. I also feel that the time limit should be explicitly stated in days, though I am open to persuasion on this point.

The amendment proposed by Dan will go to vote in 24 hours, unless Persepolis accepts it as friendly before hand.

[Peter]

The legislation stands as:

Mideast Abortion Staute II

1: No abortions shall be permitted after the First trimester of a pregnancy except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape and/or incest.
2: No female under the age of 18 years old shall be permitted to have an abortion without a parent/guardian consent.
3: Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall have any existing license from the Mideast Region or a subdivision thereof to practice a medical profession revoked for up to five years.
4: Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall be sentenced to up to one year in prison and/or a fine of up to $250,000. Any person knowingly facilitating the inducement of a prohibited abortion shall be subject to a criminal fine of up to $100,000 and/or six months in prison.
5: The Mideast Abortion Statute is hereby repealed.
I motion to strike Clause 2.

24 hours debate is open. Vote in 24 hours unless there is significant debate which is worthy of continuation

My reasons are simple - I feel that parental consent should be in a separate piece of legislation, and should contain a judicial waiver option for extreme situations.

[Peter]

I motion to strike Clause 2.

The vote is on the motion. Please vote; Vote open for 48 hours or until conclusive majority.

[Peter]

Aye