Northeast Assembly Thread

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I will be only sporadically present for the next week (tomorrow-probably next Thursday or Friday; vacation in Quebec). Is there anything I ought to arrange for in my mostly-absence?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I will be only sporadically present for the next week (tomorrow-probably next Thursday or Friday; vacation in Quebec). Is there anything I ought to arrange for in my mostly-absence?

Re-election, good sir. Announce!

Announced! Thank you for reminding me.

I meant in terms of taking an official leave of absence or the like.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'd support lowering the cap. I also support Scott's second amendment, unless wormyguy has some idea that could achieve the same effect in a way that would alleviate his concerns.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm back, and I second the nomination of snowstalker.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I will accept my nomination, but I myself nominate Scott.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Just so everyone is aware, the following people have failed to Swear in as of yet;

FallenMorgan
Nathan

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.0

(Technically, Nathan can't nominate, or be nominated until he swears in...)

I'll wait a bit for them.

Done.

I'd like to reiterate my acceptance of my nomination and my own nomination of Scott.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

[1] Nathan
[2] Scott
[3] Cincinnatus

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

X Cincinnatus

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

X  Cincinnatus

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

May I inquire as to current Northeast laws respecting the freedom of students, such as Muslims, who have to pray at certain times of day to do so? If they're not currently free to do so, I believe that we should take the opportunity to change that now and would support an amendment to the effect that schools must provide opportunities for any time-mandated prayer in accordance with the student's faith. If this is already provided for by Northeast law, I see no reason why this bill is at all necessary, though it's certainly not a bad thing by any means.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'd like to propose an amendment altering Section 1 to read:

All schools shall allow any student the opportunity for non-led student prayer in accordance with the student's religious beliefs, and may schedule one additional minute per day for non-led student prayer, before or after students recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Aye

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Aye on the motion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would like to formally introduce an amendment to the section in question that it may read as such.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Forgive me, because I may not be reading it correctly just getting home, but can I ask how the amendment from the Gentleman from MA actually changes the text?  I'm fairly certain it's verbatim the text already included in the constitutions proposal.

Unless such amendment has already been carried and I missed it, it changes the word 'convicted' to 'accused'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Aye.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I can't vote in favour of this bill either, for the same reasons as the Speaker. This isn't like an expansion of the FDIC or something. It's an expansion of the same policies that got us into this mess and it encourages the already-inherent risk of fractional-reserve banking to balloon by eliminating the consequences for the people making the loans.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Aye on the bill.
Aye on Napoleon.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is the parenthetical list at the end of section 2 of the proposed bill meant to be exhaustive, or simply examples of what constitute crimes for this purpose?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Is the parenthetical list at the end of section 2 of the proposed bill meant to be exhaustive, or simply examples of what constitute crimes for this purpose?

It's exhaustive.  You can't go ahead and kill someone for only, say, walking around on your lawn.  It's illegal if they're trespassing, but you can just call the cops for those kinds of things.

Good. In that case I would offer an amendment changing the wording of section 2 to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can certainly support this bill.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All right, I'll remove 'armed'. Though I don't personally believe that a person should use deadly force in those circumstances (mainly because I take a dim view of the concept of property as being somehow an extension of its owner), I also agree that one should be protected from prosecution in the situation laid out.

New proposed amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Aye.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I could offer wrecking amendments, I suppose, but I'd rather just be honest and vote against the bill.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Abstain

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I plan to vote against this for substantive reasons as well, but it's my sense that a piece of legislation describing another piece of legislation as 'evil' is entirely unparliamentary and uncalled-for.