SPC for Senate: Part X

[Purple State]

There is still an hour left in the election, anything can still happen.

It's clear that only one RPP candidate is going to win, and I'd rather have DWTL win.

But you would still have to do some maneuvering if you stay in and are elected. A lot is still up in the air.

[Purple State]

PRESS RELEASE

If I am elected Senator, the first piece of legislation I plan to introduce will be an amendment to the OSPR to make Senators give a constitutional justification for all of their bills.

And what is the constitutional justification for the piece of legislation?

I agree with Max and Marokai. If you have a question about the constitutionality of a bill you can look it up. If you aren't convinced by your reading of the Constitution you can challenge the legislation in court.

[Purple State]

I propose this because it would be burdensome for the Court to hear every single case where a bill is of dubious constitutionality.

... and there are that many of those bills already?

By Senator Marokai Blue's own admission, yes

You should feel welcome to challenge the constitutionality of cases, as should all citizens if you believe legislation has impinged upon your rights. I don't think it will be too much for the Court to handle. It hasn't seemed to overly burden them yet.

On a side note, I do agree with you that Senators and office holders should be far more familiar with federal and regional constitutions and statutes.

[Purple State]

I propose this because it would be burdensome for the Court to hear every single case where a bill is of dubious constitutionality.

... and there are that many of those bills already?

By Senator Marokai Blue's own admission, yes

You should feel welcome to challenge the constitutionality of cases, as should all citizens if you believe legislation has impinged upon your rights. I don't think it will be too much for the Court to handle. It hasn't seemed to overly burden them yet.

On a side note, I do agree with you that Senators and office holders should be far more familiar with federal and regional constitutions and statutes.

I do plan on contesting some legislation in front of the Court in the near future. However, I find it absurd that we do not have constitutional debates in the Senate before the bills are passed. Just because the Court is the final arbiter on constitutional matters doesn't mean that the Senate is absolved on all responsibility for making sure that the legislation they pass is constitutional.

Those conversations are had when someone brings up the issue. We don't totally ignore it. I think it's best to restrain Senate discussion as little as possible. There are enough eyes to be able to bring those sort of problems to our attention during debate.

[Purple State]

I propose this because it would be burdensome for the Court to hear every single case where a bill is of dubious constitutionality.

... and there are that many of those bills already?

By Senator Marokai Blue's own admission, yes

You should feel welcome to challenge the constitutionality of cases, as should all citizens if you believe legislation has impinged upon your rights. I don't think it will be too much for the Court to handle. It hasn't seemed to overly burden them yet.

On a side note, I do agree with you that Senators and office holders should be far more familiar with federal and regional constitutions and statutes.

I do plan on contesting some legislation in front of the Court in the near future. However, I find it absurd that we do not have constitutional debates in the Senate before the bills are passed. Just because the Court is the final arbiter on constitutional matters doesn't mean that the Senate is absolved on all responsibility for making sure that the legislation they pass is constitutional.

Those conversations are had when someone brings up the issue. We don't totally ignore it. I think it's best to restrain Senate discussion as little as possible. There are enough eyes to be able to bring those sort of problems to our attention during debate.

I was the first person in 7 pages to even ask about the constitutinality of the stimulus bill. One senator openly ridiculed me for it and another gave a flimsy justification that would fall flat on its face if he had ever read the Constitution.

While some senators may not be able to answer your questions and should be more familiar with the Constitution, I'll try to do it right here as I am pretty confident in my knowledge of senatorial powers (back to my days arguing the GM issue).

Article I, Section 5 outlines the powers of the Senate. We can levy taxes, as well as "build or regulate the infrastructure needed for communication and transportation," "promote Science and the useful Arts," "provide for the humanitarian relief of the distress caused by unpredictable events of natural or man-made origin" and the "necessary and proper" clause. I think just about every piece of the legislation is covered under those provisions.

[Purple State]

I don't believe there is a clause that allows for the nationalization of industry.

I take a broad interpretation to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

I don't believe there is a clause that allows for the nationalization of industry.

I take a broad interpretation to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although, nationalization could be interpreted as violating Article I, Section 5, Clause 4:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bold is mine.

Thanks for helping my case, Vepres.

To read that clause as Vepres does would place the Constitution in contradiction of itself. How can we levy taxes without distorting the free market?

[Purple State]

Sorry you could'nt get in SPC but there are always other elections.  And maybe now you can go back to publishing full time

This. The news has slowed down of late with all the publishers running for office. Let's get the presses running again.

[Purple State]

Libertas, you do realize SPC has already been a Senator and Lt. Governor? He is part of the establishment, and so are you. You're no better than me!

Pwnage

Er, no, I am familiar with SPC's history and with his record as Senator, and he and I are both proof that it is possible to hold office without becoming part of the establishment.

It's amusing to see the whole anti-establishment environment in the US "spill over" into Atlasia.

At the end of the day, there has been very little actual anti-establishment efforts in Atlasia in recent memory. The closest anything came to a substantive movement was Hamilton and the ARC, but once Hamilton was banned and the party converted (under extreme pressure from average Atlasians) into the Populares it essentially "bowed to" the establishment and became part of the system.

Now, we have had independent actors that bucked the system (see SPC), but full-fledged movements have been hard to come by and even harder to sustain. We should remember that the JCP and RPP were both "anti-establishment" too before they grew into dominant establishment forces.

And Senator Libertas, despite your colorful rhetoric, your efforts in the Senate have not been anti-establishment by any objective (or subjective) measure.

[Purple State]

Now, we have had independent actors that bucked the system (see SPC, not his most recent venture in the Senate but the one before that)

Huh? IIRC, I only served one term in the Senate?

Hmm, wonder why that blended with something else. In that case, I shall edit that post to correct that.