Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Purple State]

UAE is illegal under the original LGBT trade law, because it applies death penalty to homosexuals.

Well it would be legal, but the SoEA likely would (and certainly should) immediately suspend it until they reformed those practices. I have to say I wouldn't support that sort of bill anyway (not that I will likely have a chance to vote on it).

[Purple State]

At a certain point people will realize that regulating political parties in Atlasia is simply unconstitutional under the current power structure.

If anything, a comprehensive constitutional amendment would be necessary to effect the sort of change many want in political parties, but it is doubtful that such a thing could pass without a compelling impetus.

I also believe the bill to be unconstitutional.

     What parts of it are not justifiable under Article V, Section 1, Clause 8?

That clause gives the Senate the ability to determine benefits given to organized political parties (as in, you could say that only organized political parties could be on ballots if we were to change to a system of election by party lists). However, it does not indicate that the private actions of party membership falls under the purview of the government.

[Purple State]

At a certain point people will realize that regulating political parties in Atlasia is simply unconstitutional under the current power structure.

If anything, a comprehensive constitutional amendment would be necessary to effect the sort of change many want in political parties, but it is doubtful that such a thing could pass without a compelling impetus.

I also believe the bill to be unconstitutional.

     What parts of it are not justifiable under Article V, Section 1, Clause 8?

That clause gives the Senate the ability to determine benefits given to organized political parties (as in, you could say that only organized political parties could be on ballots if we were to change to a system of election by party lists). However, it does not indicate that the private actions of party membership falls under the purview of the government.

     This was intended to give them the benefit of being able to regulate their own membership, including channels through which they could do so. If you think it would be better, it could just be written to give the party a general right to do so, that they could write into their bylaws in whatever form they want.

That would be the best course, especially because the current legislation is in direct contradiction of the DA bylaws. A law affirming the general right of parties to remove members by whatever means agreed upon in their bylaws, noting that the SoFA may be notified of such action, and that the person removed shall then be automatically registered as an unaffiliated independent would be appropriate.

[Purple State]

How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.

I'd be more than happy to modify it to that.

It can't be simply that or you aren't doing anything.

First, it needs to include the words, "except where specifically denied by the Constitution or in statute."

Also, you should make clear that if a party removes a member, it shall be permitted to inform the SoFA to remove that member from it's list, as well as indicating that said individual shall thene be registered as an independent until they indicate otherwise.

[Purple State]

Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

Why? The point is that the government has almost no role in party regulation. All this legislation can do is formalize avenues that parties may choose to use. For example, it has never been clear what power parties have to remove members. They can do it, but does the SoFA have to do anything? And can the person sign back up to the party?

The bill gives parties discretion and simply provides directive to the SoFA, which is exactly what it should do.

[Purple State]

Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

Why? The point is that the government has almost no role in party regulation. All this legislation can do is formalize avenues that parties may choose to use. For example, it has never been clear what power parties have to remove members. They can do it, but does the SoFA have to do anything? And can the person sign back up to the party?

The bill gives parties discretion and simply provides directive to the SoFA, which is exactly what it should do.

Question, do American political parties have the power to remove members?

I believe they do, although it is obviously not a commonly used ability and it is likely not very easy. I am not familiar enough with the charters of either major party though to fully answer the question.

[Purple State]

Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.

Nor do I, it does nothing to solve any problem we have going on right now other than giving parties some thin plausible deniability. If anyone is kicked out of a party, I'd encourage them to sue and see if such an action actually stands, anyway.

Umm, didn't your party kick Xahar out? We kicked Dan out for his abuse of our trust. I'm not really sure why extreme circumstances do not warrant that sort of power.

Not to mention, parties are private institutions. If you can fire someone for behavior unbecoming of an employee, why can't parties do the same?

[Purple State]

Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.

Nor do I, it does nothing to solve any problem we have going on right now other than giving parties some thin plausible deniability. If anyone is kicked out of a party, I'd encourage them to sue and see if such an action actually stands, anyway.

Umm, didn't your party kick Xahar out? We kicked Dan out for his abuse of our trust. I'm not really sure why extreme circumstances do not warrant that sort of power.

We considered it, but we didn't, no. And I never supported it anyway.

I just want it known that Im not happy about any of this either, as I was one of his most vocal defenders. But I still don't think expulsion from the party is a reasonable sentence.

Suspension, as Sib just said, is likely to happen anyway.

Fair enough.

I do still believe (not sure if you responded before I edited it in) that as private institutions, parties have this right. The question then becomes what requirement does the government have to enforce that right. Obviously the current state of the law (no law) would indicate anyone could simply rejoin a party that expels them. The Senate may choose to simply deny the right of parties to do so by neglecting to pass this legislation. It would seem to be a valid path for the Senate to take, albeit one I disagree with.

[Purple State]

I would like to bring attention to the fact that Marokai's introduced Protection of Public Health Act, as well as the Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act (Although I like that name) are regional matters that should not be addressed by the federal senate.

As a citizen who cares a great deal about our regions' rights, I see this as a huge wrong on the part of Senator Marokai Blue. I hope that others that care about regional rights will agree with me on this issue. This should be left to the regions.

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The former is a matter of public health and as such is most certainly in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the latter is simply a matter of coming to terms with the reality of our modern society and growing up.

Unless you have a reason why this is harmful it's all "regional rights" nonsense just for the sake of it.

Don't get me wrong Marokai. I have nothing against the bills themselves. I was a strong advocate for the Mideast's Public Smoking Ban and was an important part of passing that legislation, and when the subject was brought up by Peter in a private conversation, I stated I wouldn't oppose a bill lowering the purchase age of pron to 14, as I do not believe it's the goverments job to regulate that.

However this is still regional matters. If you want to introduce them in the Pacific I will be behind you to 100 %, but it's not the Senate's area to force this on the regions.

Since you seem to be a nice guy I'll try to be nice in my explanation back to you.

I don't think it matters. If the Senate has the authority to do it, and it's the right thing to do, then I have nothing against the Senate doing it. It's quite simple. This Senate has also passed legislation dealing with marriage, civil unions, education, among many other social issues, like drugs (Hi DWTL), and so on. We have the authority to legislate in this area.

Further, there is seemingly no test for what constitutes a regional issue and what doesn't. Is education standards and drugs a national issue, but public health from smoking is not a national issue? Why can we regulation marijuana smoking, yet not tobacco? Is marriage a national issue, but if so, why is porn consumption not?

Since there is seemingly no test for what is a regional vs. national issue, and we've rarely concerned ourselves with it in the past, and there's no stated harm for going ahead with it, I see no reason not to legislate it. If you oppose it, then push for it's repeal should you ever get to the Senate, take it to court, or try to battle it from your Assembly. Otherwise..

I think Marokai has a fair point. There has never been a case before the Court that has dealt with what, exactly, constitutes regional jurisdiction. Because the Constitution is pretty broad in its interpretation of what the Senate may do and pretty narrow on what the regions may not do, you more often see regional legislation taken to court (the SE's currency law) than federal legislation taken to court for overstepping regional jurisdiction.

[Purple State]

This is, of course, why regional and federal rights are a balancing act, not a choice between two extremes. Swedish Cheese pointed out why regional rights can be a great thing. Marokai pointed out why federal governance can be a great thing. So rather than totally remove the power of either, it is best to have each one balance with the other.

I also must say, I suspect that for all the rhetoric Marokai, you do in ways appreciate the regions when they aren't impeding your own initiatives. You recognize the value of the regional assemblies and of having a place for new members to start off.

[Purple State]

NC Yank, you make the market very happy today. Financial indicators up later.

[Purple State]

NC Yank, you make the market very happy today. Financial indicators up later.

If I recall the DOW went up 400 points when the first Tarp plan was unveiled and then it tanked 700 points when it failed in the House vote. Off course back then the DOW was still hoovering around 11,000 even when all that raucous ended in early October.

Usually I make everyone depressed, usually thats my number one goal also.

I kinda lied. Up tomorrow. Your bill came out after the markets closed. But overnight futures say good things.

[Purple State]

Cabinet Restructuring Act 2009

Pre-amble

The Senate recognises the recent legislative changes that have taken place and the potential effects and opportunities therein.

Section 1.
a. The post of Secretary for Health and Social Affairs is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary for Health and Social Affairs shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Health, Education, Welfare and Housing and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.

Section 2.
a. The post of Secretary of the Treasury is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary of the Treasury shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Taxation, Social Security, budgetary concerns and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.
c. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, with the assistance of the Game Moderator, be required to address the Senate once each session on the state of the economy and public expenditure.

I applaud the Senator for introducing this bill. We definately need a better economic framework for the country. I have one question. Are these playable or non playable?

Oh very playable I don't see why not given the support that the GM can now provide to government officials.

I was just wondering since the current GM doesn't like creating new offices. I was thinking of creating a Fed chairman that was playable. We could allow dual officeholding just for that office and give it to Sam Spade, that would be cool. I know he is busy now a days but all we would have to do is come on every month and pretend to be Alan Greenspan for 30 minutes.

My distaste for creating new offices is more about practical reasons than ideological ones. It simply reduces competition and turns this game into a government sim, rather than an election one. Are the current Cabinet officials that busy? I believe Treasury is already in the job description of the SoFA.

Just my thoughts in a non-GM, pro-game reform capacity. As GM, I would say that the possibility of having people to respond to my releases is always exciting, although it would be just as exciting if individuals already in government would respond substantively as well (not all, but a good chunk of ya'll could use your bully pulpits a little more. The markets and the world would appreciate it.)

[Purple State]

Can someone explain the constitutionality of the motorcycle bill to me please.  How is the naitonal government given the right to legislate traffic policy?  Should'nt this be a regional rights issue?  And why isn't the "Regional Rights" Party againest it?

So sue. I'm already in one lawsuit.

[Purple State]

Can someone explain the constitutionality of the motorcycle bill to me please.  How is the naitonal government given the right to legislate traffic policy?  Should'nt this be a regional rights issue?  And why isn't the "Regional Rights" Party againest it?

Article I, Section V, Clause 10

To build or regulate the infrastructure needed for communication and transportation.

I assume regulation of infrastructure can be expanded to include regulation of that which utilizes that infrastructure.

[Purple State]

If it's not too much, would the Senate pass legislation making it a crime to reveal classified or top secret information? I figure if I am, indeed, going to be supplying that sort of info, there should be some deterrent from publicizing it.

[Purple State]

If it's not too much, would the Senate pass legislation making it a crime to reveal classified or top secret information? I figure if I am, indeed, going to be supplying that sort of info, there should be some deterrent from publicizing it.

I have a problem because of the possible case than Senators could need a secret information to pass a law. Senate will not give all the control to the President and the DoEA, from what I am seeing on the Senate floor.

It would really be up to the Senate how the law is crafted. I understand that information cannot only be shared with the PPT, but that is who the info will be released to in the Senate. The hope is that this person will share that info with the Senate.

Essentially, I will be sharing top secret info with the Pres., VP, SoEA and PPT. It is their responsibility to keep the Senate informed.

[Purple State]

Right To Life Bill

1. This bill shall make it illegal for any woman to have an abortion that results in the termination of a pregnancy.

2. Any woman discovered to have had an illegal abortion, shall be subjected to up to a $10,000 fine and/or 3 years in jail.

3. Any doctor known to have performed said illegal abortion, shall immediately have his/her license revoked, be barred from practicing medicine for life, and face a $20,000 fine and/or 5 years in jail.

Well that's a "Hells no!" from me. First, I completely disagree. Second, not even a clause to take into account the health of the mother?

[Purple State]

A thought I had: There is no legislation to help the failing banks. This may lead to dire economic results in one week's time unless substantial movement is made by the Senate to address the problem (it does not need to be bailing out the banks, but some sort of strategy to address the issue). Your GM has spoken.

[Purple State]

PS, is this revenge for us not respecting your Saturday rule. I go away for a Sunday and no we have October 29th within a week. Much has been posted and will be posted on this but I have a few points quickly

1. Do we have a Fed or not? If not we need to create one or create a "National Bank"(not what Hamilton's proposing) to do the same things: control insterest rates, money supply, etc.

2. Do we have an FDIC for small Bank deposits. If not one should be created ensuring deposits up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for Small Businesses.

3. Create a program that winds down failed banks but without the catastrophe of an "weekend Collapse" like Lehman, while at the same time, no AIG bailouts. The banks once failed should be sold off either as one unit, or split up and sold part and parcel. A good example might be Bear Stearns or WA Mu only without the taxpayer money involved. Any losses incurred by the program would be recouped by charging the Existing Banks a Fee or Premuim. In the meantime taxpayer money might have to be used to avoid a collapse but long term self sustainabililty would be key. Basically creating another FDIC for Investment banks.

4. A new Regulatory regime to prevent future collapses and make sure Tax payers on on the hook for future loses by preventing them from occuring in the first place.
     -Repeal the Commodities Futures Modernisation Act or significantly modifies it to eliminate the CDS market.
     -Create a 12-1 to one Leveraging Maximum
     -Minimum Researve requirments with a minimum amount or all of it being in Cash or liquid assets
     -Strict Standards for lending to Homeowners.
     -A few other things that I can't remember of the top of my head.

I am however at a loss as to how to write this up.


I oppose Hamiltons Public Option for Banks as much as I opposed the Public Health Care option. I also oppose a Tarp plan, structured like the one in the US. I don't won't "Too big to fail" and I don't want "Let it Fail and who cares what happens" What I want is Let it fail in an organised process that doesn't kill the economy. With standards and procedures for how that is to be done and paid for.

1. I would say there is one, but it would not act independently. You can assume that there is a mechanism to change interest rates, print money, etc. but that there are scant details on how such a thing is run. I would advise the Senate to clarify this by legislation (does the President have power to order it to act by executive order? Is its actions solely up to the Senate? Is it some mix of the two?)

2. Yes on exists, but it currently ensures only up to $100,000 for individuals. Legislation would be necessary to increase this number.

As for the rest, once you have a bill in the works the markets will be at least somewhat eased. I don't think a bank will fail within one week unless the markets are completely disillusioned by the Senate's actions. But, I do warn against dilly-dallying on this. Major missteps could lead investors to make runs on financial institution stocks and lead to a series of bank failures.

Let me also add that I will do my best to "score" in some way whatever bill comes up, partially in a "what it will cost" sense, but also to grade its effectiveness to help you guys craft something.

[Purple State]

I think the easiest way to get rid of zombies is to tighten the number of national-level votes one may miss before being removed from the voter rolls. You could also not allow new members to vote in the first national election following their registration.

This would force people to remain at least remain somewhat interested for two months or more.

[Purple State]

I'm not pretending we don't have problems, I would just contend they're not as severe as our real-world counterpart. Action needs to be taken, I simply don't know what action to take.

The reason the Senate hates dealing with the economy folks.

I hate dealing with it too. Go figure.

I'm not pretending we don't have problems, I would just contend they're not as severe as our real-world counterpart. Action needs to be taken, I simply don't know what action to take.

I have consistently asked that those with superior knowledge of economics point out where I make faults. But, of course, simply saying I'm wrong doesn't help. When Yank thought I was wrong, he gave me links and thoughts, etc. which influenced a number of articles and resulted in better info. You are welcome to do the same.

And you are correct that I have not reviewed every piece of legislation the Senate has passed. This is why I requested you point out how the US and Atlasia differ. A simple response goes a long way (and do try to keep it simple because your long posts tend to confuse me ).

[Purple State]

Vice-Presidential Election Amendment

The election to the office of Vice-President shall be a distinct and seperate election from that of the President, although the elections for both offices will occur simultaneously.

If this makes sense, on regional levels (Governor/Lt. Governor) I think the system should be with the Governor and Lt. Governor on the same ticket. On the national level, I'm pretty torn on this bill. I really like this idea, but what would it do? I'll have to see both arguements before deciding.

This could be a very interesting move and could especially help create a stronger VP, as well as greater competition.

Of course, there are also some arguments against this, so it's all about which side's evidence has the greater weight. Definitely a good way to create a discussion though, so in that I applaud Senator Fritz.

[Purple State]

There is definitely a way to make a CoG work with more than simple veto power. If we can all agree to work on something where the CoG has similar power to the President's line-item veto, I think it warrants discussion.

[Purple State]

You want to kill two birds with one stone, Marokai, but still you fail to realise just how incompatible a CoG is for me. I am a strong beleive in separation of powers and this violates that. I have a plan to make the Governors more excited but your friends keep standing in my way for Partisan advantage a common ploy as you yourself just voted a certain way on an Amendment to suit your other goals. Thats why I wish BK and his compadres would work to restore the initiative process if they feel an assembly is unexceptable but there again, nothing. We could give Governor's more of a say in the Intiative process.

Also as Hashemite said, the CoG is basical 1 and 1/2 cameralism.

The mere size of Atlasia makes "separation of powers" between regional and federal unnecessary. Of course, full disclosure, I advocate partial dual-office holding between regional and federal so go figure.

Having a CoG makes the gubernatorial elections much more exciting, while ensuring proper regional representation on the federal level. I think this is an appropriate and pragmatic compromise for regionalists to make.