Northeast Assembly Thread

[tpfkaw]

Which provision of the constitution would it be challenged under?

[tpfkaw]

So I can refuse to sell to a black guy simply because he is black?

I don't know.  Is that what you want to do?

[tpfkaw]

So I can refuse to sell to a black guy simply because he is black?

I don't know.  Is that what you want to do?

Don't be coy, you know that's a legitimate concern.

In relation to your question about Constitutionality

ii) Equality
All persons of the Northeast are born equal, and shall be treated as so, no matter their age, gender, race, religion, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. No government institution may favour one group over another physical constraints excepting.

The second part of the sentence refers to Government but the first sentence is very clear in my mind.

Is there anything in this law that prevents people from being treated equally?  (And, for that matter, why bold "race?")  If not, it's constitutional.  In any event, it's a proven fact that a black person accused of murder is significantly more likely to be convicted than a white person, and that blacks also receive harsher sentences.  If we as an assembly were to abolish all laws pertaining to murder, the sum total amount of racial discrimination would certainly decrease, but I think all will agree that the amount of murders would probably increase as well.  In the same vein, in theory more racial discrimination would be legal under this law (though you really don't think we'd have "FAR-RIGHT GUN NUT WON'T SELL TO BLACKS!" on Huffington Post or whatever within minutes?), but more importantly, it would have prevented the deaths of nine people at the hands of a psychotic gunman, in the Tucson shooting alone.

As I think you would agree from my example above (punishments for murder), preventing murders >>>>> preventing racial discrimination.

[tpfkaw]

While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.

In which way does this bill promote racial discrimination?  I fail to see the "racial discrimination tax credit" or "segregation regulation" but I'm sure that if I keep looking I'll find it.

[tpfkaw]

While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.

In which way does this bill promote racial discrimination?  I fail to see the "racial discrimination tax credit" or "segregation regulation" but I'm sure that if I keep looking I'll find it.

Because a Bill doesn't specifically say it will do something, doesn't mean you can't see what the consequences of this Bill could be.

Well, we know with 100% certainty that if this bill had been passed in Arizona last December this girl and 8 others would still be alive:



Do you think that she deserves to die to prevent the vanishingly unlikely proposition that Billy-Bob will forgo good business by not selling Jane a gun on account of her Jainism?  (And anyway, couldn't Jane just find someone other than Billy-Bob?  If it's so hard to buy a gun one wonders why liberals want to ban them so much).

[tpfkaw]

Well you know my view on availability of lethal weapons.

I'll introduce a bill to ban knives and automobiles.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think about these unstable criminals?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OOOH... "emotional blackmail."  Sounds very scary, and like something that Polnut has never done.  There is no "promotion of racial discrimination" (one remains confused by your obsession with racial discrimination to the exclusion of all others) in this bill at all.  You are introducing a bizarre hypothetical and saying that justifies letting people be killed (as they have been killed) in order to prevent said bizarre hypothetical.  I could have made the same bizarre hypothetical about Sbane's wind farm bill (how do we know that prime contracts wouldn't be awarded in a discriminatory manner, as they have in the past?), or your public transportation bill (how do we know that [the best] infrastructure won't be built only in heavily-white areas, as it has in the past?).  I'm sure you would argue that those are absurd hypotheticals, and that promoting environmentalism/public transportation stuff outweighs preventing those hypotheticals.  This bill is about preventing murder, which is a few lightyears beyond racial discrimination in the world of moral turpitude.

Indeed, I even brought the issue up in the debate over your public transportation bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe you ever provided a response.

[tpfkaw]

Cars and knifes have other purposes besides killing or maiming... guns don't.

Hunting, admiring on the wall, protecting oneself from rapists and murderers trying to break into your house while the police take 35 minutes to arrive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, gun sellers obviously couldn't weed out everyone, and I'm sure less scrupulous ones wouldn't (but by removing the requirement that they sell to everyone who passes the background check gun retailers would now be subject to lawsuits for negligence - I have no doubt that the gun retailer lobby is against this bill...).  But they would've weeded out Loughner, and probably quite a few others as well.  But saying that firearms retailers should have to sell firearms to obviously psychotic people because other people might be psychotic but not obviously so is like saying that the highway patrol shouldn't be allowed to pull over obviously drunk drivers because other drivers might be drunk but manifest symptoms later on.

[tpfkaw]

Aye

[tpfkaw]

Can we just assume that the assembly passes a resolution condemning the incident/expressing solidarity with the wounded etc., provided there are no objections?

[tpfkaw]

I motion to amend the bill back to its original form.

[tpfkaw]

Sorry, I didn't have access to the internet this weekend.  Aye FTR.

Also, a tie doesn't mean the bill fails, it means it goes to the governor to break the tie.

[tpfkaw]

Thank you, speaker.

As we all know, the history of our country is not entirely composed of proud moments, least of which is the mass murder and cultural genocide of the people who were indigenous to the land prior to the introduction of European settlers.  The land that we stand on is stolen land, from the people who originally inhabited it and made it their home.  It is not possible to fully right this wrong - most of this region's land is inhabited, and it would be neither possible nor proper to return it to its rightful owners.  However, there are vast tracts of land held in trust by various governments here, local, regional, and federal, which have not been made into residential areas.

To this day, the original tribes native to those lands are not able to live on their ancestral lands, or use their ancestral hunting and fishing grounds, or visit their traditional places of worship.  It is simple to right a portion of the wrongs of the past; this assembly need only transfer those lands held in trust by the Northeast government to the native tribes they were stolen from.  Some might argue that regional government ownership of certain lands is absolutely crucial - if that is the case then they might be purchased for a fair price, or the native tribes might be convinced to give them to the regional government again if they truly are so crucial.  But it is absolutely neither right nor fair that our region continue to hold to the doctrine of "might makes right" regarding this issue.

[tpfkaw]

Aye

[tpfkaw]

I find this bill to be extremely constitutionally suspect, as this assembly cannot simply bypass the governor to declare something illegal.  That must be its own law.  Furthermore, if an organization is truly engaged in terrorist activity, then its members can be arrested and any assets seized because that activity is illegal.  Given that terrorist activities are already illegal, this bill merely serves as a means of harassing legitimate organizations, as such laws have been used for in the far-off land of America.

[tpfkaw]

Nay

I see no reason why anything in this law is not already covered under conspiracy and/or racketeering laws.  It therefore can have no other purpose than harassment.

[tpfkaw]

My debate:

Nyah nyah nyah.

Thank you.

[tpfkaw]

We could always name one of them Ron Paul International Airport. 

I'm never one to be a hack (otherwise t'would've been the Al Smith and Grover Cleveland airports...).  Also I think it's bad luck to name them after someone living...

How about we rename one of the airports after The Beatles?

I could certainly get behind that, but the Atlasian convention seems to be to name them after fictional politicians.

[tpfkaw]

Aye

[tpfkaw]

If this bill fails I can assure you my first bill of the next assembly will be something you'll find more objectionable.

[tpfkaw]

I will run for Speaker.

[tpfkaw]

Also, I second Sbane for speaker.

You can't second two different people for speaker.

Anyone else interested in running for speaker should speak up now, otherwise we will begin elections for speaker at around 9 PM EST today and elections will last 24 hours. Whoever wins will be elected speaker. Also, I second Sbane for speaker. We currently have two candidates for speaker: Wormy and Sbane. Again, speak up if you're interested.

Do you have any authority to do this?

No, but TBH I don't really care.

[tpfkaw]

Also, I second Sbane for speaker.

You can't second two different people for speaker.

Not nominating, just seconding the motion

You don't need to second the motion.

[tpfkaw]

Also, I second Sbane for speaker.

You can't second two different people for speaker.

Not nominating, just seconding the motion

You don't need to second the motion.

Alright then. So anyway, I assume no one else is really interested in running for speaker?

Well, only four of us have sworn in...

[tpfkaw]

Who else do we need? FallenMorgan, Ghost_white, Rowan and Napoleon?

FallenMorgan and maybe Napoleon are the only ones likely to swear in, for obvious reasons.

[tpfkaw]

[X] Wormyguy(Populares)

[] Write-In