SENATE BILL: Environmental Conservation and Protection Act (Failed)

[Napoleon]

Where in the Constitution do you see that?

[Napoleon]

This is precisely why this bill is necessary. We need to end the corrupt government practice of giving land set aside for conservation to your buddies so they can make a profit. It is a crime against the people and a crime against nature. I also saw a Mideast Assemblyman express desire to allow oil companies to use these lands.

I don't care who "owns" the land, we need checks and balances. Regional land is still territory of Atlasia and most of Atlasia's land is located within a region. We don't need to do something as destructive as letting regions destroy their natural environment because they feel like it.

[Napoleon]

Article I, Section 5, Clause 31

[Napoleon]

If the federal government desires to protect a land directly, we are capable of buying it ourselves. Otherwise I fear we discourage regions from setting further land aside.

It really is a two way street. It gives the regional governments a say over federal conservation and vice versa.

read this

[Napoleon]

The only part I could see that provision relating to is not going to be found unconstitutional. They wouldn't be required to do anything other than from this unless you consider making regional approval necessary to transfer federal lands. The regions are already required to approve a law to do this dangerous process because they are Democracies and not a dictatorship or anarchy. This is just giving some federal jurisdiction over land within this nation's boundaries.

Furthermore, everything following "exempt" in that clause of yours would be triggered, so to speak, by the clause I posted showing this power belongs to the Senate.

[Napoleon]

I think that was supposed to say "protected" instead of "federal".

[Napoleon]

I think that was supposed to say "protected" instead of "federal".

"federal"?

Yes but why are we turning this debate into a constitutional law class?

[Napoleon]

So anyone want to explain why JBrase's provision is superior to mine and why we should fail to pass a bill we can't say is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt...I think it is constitutionally sound.

[Napoleon]

No, an answer to my question is desired.

[Napoleon]

I don't think it is pointless, though.

[Napoleon]

I've demonstrated why this bill is necessary through my arguments and my evidence provided via link. I have sufficiently demonstrated how it is constitutional and Snowguy has reinforced that argument. There is, in my opinion, no excuses. This bill preserves a region's right to designate land for protection without fear that the land will be sacrificed for the sake of fulfilling ideological dogma or corrupt cronyism. Either you believe some environmental conservation is necessary or you believe that the environment is to be used solely to advance capitalism via appropriation or cronyism. I am ready for a final vote and hope the Senate can make the right choice.

[Napoleon]

Aye.

[Napoleon]

With all due respect Mr. President, everything you requet has been provided in this thread. It was enough for many of us to make a decision so if you need something else I would need to know what you are looking for more specifically. Otherwise, it seems to me everything that has needed to be said has already been said, from both sides.

[Napoleon]

I laid out what I felt were pretty clear arguments in favor of constitutionality. Senator Snowguy also made a very noticeable post a page back arguing for the bill's constitutionality, which IMO isn't in doubt (especially going odor the reasonable doubt standard I suggested). Furthermore, we have a Supreme Court for a reason so why not give them something to do. The bill is a great constitutional solution to a pressing problem and allowing the Court to uphold that if necessary would give them a little something to do while erasing any doubt altogether.

[Napoleon]

I'd be more discouraged knowing that conservation efforts could be easily overturned by an extreme right wing puppet administration just four months later but maybe that is just my opinion. Or, more likely, it is something that was tried in my region in this game and in my state in real life. This isn't the type of issue we should leave up to political chance.

[Napoleon]

Actually it is fairly clear that my bill has essentially nothing in common with your findings at all. It is almost as if a do-as-little-as-possible administration is what you're going for.

[Napoleon]

Actually it is fairly clear that my bill has essentially nothing in common with your findings at all. It is almost as if a do-as-little-as-possible administration is what you're going for.

How? It's a federal law that requires cabinet-level approval for states and municipalities to close/sell/rezone/etc. virtually any environmentally protected area in the country. Is that not exactly what this bill would have done?  

No. Not at all. The bill is distinctively meant for conservation and protection, as the title shows us. It isn't a recreation Parks bill. Also, it adds quite a bit more than cabinet approval.