Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just because no President has entered negotiations with other micronations since the DMA was passed doesn't mean that none will.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hybrid Car Tax Break

Section 1:
a.) This bill is aimed to stimulate the purchases of hybrid and alternative fuel source cars and their use
b.) To qualify the car cannot run solely on petroleum gasoline, but may be a hybrid running on petroleum gasoline and another fuel source
c.) To qualify you must also continue to own the car, selling or donating your car will invalidate you to further tax breaks

Section 2:
The following tax breaks will be issued for purchasing a hybrid car:
1st Fiscal Year (referred to as FY) of ownership: 50% of price paid for the car
2nd FY of ownership: 25% of price paid for the car
3rd FY of ownership: 20% of price paid for the car
4th FY of ownership: 15% of price paid for the car
5th FY of ownership: 10% of price paid for the car
6+ FY of ownership: 8% of price paid for the car

Section 3:
This law shall apply to federal income taxes only

Section 2 is confusing.  Does it mean that if I buy a hybrid car and own it for 6 years I get back 128% of the purchase price in tax breaks?

This is terrible bill. Not only are the tax breaks excessive, it represents an attempt by the government to micromanage which technological solutions will be employed to reduce petroleum use.  Worse, all this will do is place a large number of flex fuel vehicles on the road that will be filled up with petroleum based fuels so long as they are cheaper than other alternatives.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agreed.  When I was last in the Senate, I staggered the introduction of the bills I wished to propose so as to avoid monopolizing the time of the Senate.  Looks like it may be time to amend the OPSR so as to limit the number of slots that bills sponsored by a single Senator can occupy.  Since I am not at present a Senator I present the following for any interested Senator to introduce.


OPSR Courtesy Resolution

1. Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1 of the OPSR is amended by inserting before the period, ", subject to such limitations on available debate slots contained in this section".

2. Article 3 Section 2 of the OPSR is amended by adding the following as Clause 7:
"7. Notwithstanding Clause 1 of this Section, unless no other bills are available for debate, a Senator may not be the sponsor of more than two pieces of legislation that are on the floor at any one time."


The first clause is to recognize the fact that because of the different types of slots, the Senate already does not follow the strict letter of Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1 by debating legislation in the strict order of introduction.

The second clause prevents a Senator from clogging the calendar with his bills to the exclusion of all others.  If we had more Senators introducing legislation I could see changing that limit from two down to one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

FWIW, I don't support Ernest's OSPR amendment.  If only 2 Senators are introducing legislation, why would we stop them from being debated in a reasonable fashion?

If that is the case, then my proposal would have no effect as written, since if there are no other bills to be debated than bills in excess of the per Senator limit are in order if teh alternative is an empty slot.  It would mean that if there was a queue of 50 or so bills proposed by only 2 Senators than if another Senator happened to propose a bill for a change, it would go to the front of the queue.  Frankly, the long queue that is presently in place acts as a deterrent to Senators who might wish to submit occasional bills from doing so because of the length of time between proposal and debate.  The proposal will provide an encouragement for occasional authors to write bills (or at least to sponsor them) since they can count on timely debate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I prefer rules changes that would encourage quality over quantity.  However if you feel you;d be hanpered by the two slot limit, there's always the obvious tactic of getting another Senator to sponsor some of your bills.  That's another plus for this proposal in my view as it gives the Senate an incentive to organize instead of continuing to go  in ten separate disjointed paths.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OMG, you want to repeal the gay adoption bill?  What the hell is wrong with you?

If you want a real 'fairness to the children' act, make the adoption process completely free (as it is in the Pacific region).

Perhaps he's offended by the circumlocutions it goes through, so much so that it has to include a section outlining that it doesn't mean pedophilia or hebephilia when it refers to sexual orientation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Affirmative Action Reform Bill of 2007

1. F.L. 8-14 is repealed.

Why are you in favor of discrimination?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There are certain limited situations in which I would favor such distinctions to be made, such as in the gender of phys ed teachers.  As new law, a total ban on such measures is overbroad, but as existing law it serves as an important statement of principle which should be struck only in particular cases where there is a job-related reason for making such a distinction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

2nd Immigration Reform Bill of 2007

1. The Illegal Immigrant Act (F.L. 18-8) is hereby repealed.

2. Illegal aliens who have been convicted of a state or federal offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment less than 12 months in duration within the last 5 years of their application shall be denied citizenship in all instances, even if their application is presently pending under the auspices of F.L. 18-8.  This shall not apply to persons imprisoned for actions which have since become decriminalized.

3. Illegal aliens who have been convicted of a state or federal offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment less than 12 months in duration not within the last 5 years of their application whose application is presently pending under the auspices of F.L. 18-8 shall be allowed to become citizens, if meeting the separate requirements of all other relevant legislation.

4. Illegal or legal aliens who have become citizens because of changes in the law effectuated by F.L. 18-8 shall not have their citizenship revoked.

Is it too much to ask that you wait until the start of a new Senate before you reintroduce a bill defeated by the current Senate?  (I realize it's unlikely to come up before this Senate, given the length of the queue, but...)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Speaking purely for my own sake and not in my capacity as SoEA:

Carbon Tax Residential Relief Act

§1. Findings
   (c) The Carbon Tax, while a strong, powerful mechanism for lowering Atlasian carbon dioxide emissions, is a regressive tax that could potentially cripple lower-income taxpayers while having virtually no effect on the richest of taxpayers;
   (d) The Carbon Tax is an incentive only to those with the means to change their fuel consumption habits.  Those whose incomes place them in the lower-to-middle income tax brackets have little ability to switch to a more fuel efficient manner of home heating, install solar panels, purchase better insulating windows, and pursue similar fuel-saving ideas;
   (e) Similarly, it is a finding that those least able to pay for electricity bills and home heating fuel are also the least likely to waste fossil fuels out of an inability to afford such waste.

I reject utterly the assumption that the poor have insufficient income as to be able to make any choices concerning their energy usage.  I'll grant that their discretion is limited and they have less ability to respond to sudden changes in pricing.  That is one reason why the carbon tax is slowly phased in over 10 years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These two chapters effectively remove any incentive the Carbon Tax provides to reduce CO₂ emissions to a large segment of the Atlasian populace.  It would be far better to deal with the concerns of the gentleman from Massachusetts to increase the EITC, increase the personal exemption and/or reduce the rate of tax in the lower tax brackets to ameliorate the effects upon the less well off that Mr. Moderate complains of.  Not only would such alternatives preserve the intended effect of the carbon tax to spur individual efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions as a common incentive for all Atlasians, they would not require the added bureaucratic burden that the proposed tax rebate forms would impose.  Do we really need to add an additional line to Form 1040, plus create two additional tax forms to be filed by a large number of Atlasians?


In summation, while I share to some degree the concerns of Mr. Moderate, there are better ways of dealing with them, which I have mentioned above.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What about the discrimination in your proposal against those who heat their homes with electric power?  At least down in the Sun Belt, using an electric heat pump for both heating and cooling is fairly standard as you save the cost of installing a separate heating system.  As for the bureaucratic burden, one reason out tax code is so complex is because of a whole bunch of "one little extra item won't hurt" ideas.  Since your concerns can be dealt with without adding yet another "one little extra item", it would be better to do so without doing so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, part of the problem with the other methods—lowering the lowest tax tier and boosting the EITC—isn't a guaranteed fix for the problem.  Participation in the EITC is only around 80%,

Do you expect this credit to have any better rate of participation?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it avoided adding anything to the individual tax code.

I also thought of another problem.  How do roommates go about splitting the tax rebate you're offering?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Would the "Illegal is Still Illegal Act" also revoke the citizenship of anyone who has applied for citizenship in the time since going so became legal on May 19? Because the Senate has no rights to revoke citizenship.

I don't think so, as that would be a violation of ex post facto law.

Then I question what, in fact, the Illegal is Still Illegal Act is meant to do -- punish those who were not sufficiently rapid in submitting paperwork or those who the federal government dallied in issuing citizenship to?

I presume the intention is to reduce the flood of people who have been coming here since the bill passed, now that we effectively have no immigration limits.  In my capacity as CEO Emeritus of RegionCorp, I hope this bill does not pass.  RegionCorp has been able to reduce its labor costs considerably since this bill happened.  Now if we could only get rid of those pesky minimum wage laws that the Regions have.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I also thought of another problem.  How do roommates go about splitting the tax rebate you're offering?

The roommate thing is simple.  The rebate goes to the person listed on the electric bill.  Roommates can arrange to split the credit the same way they split the electric bill.

And what of those who live in an apartment which have utilities provided?  For a good bit of my time in college, I lived in an apartment building that had centrally provided radiant heat and no individual metering of utilities.  (I imagine it was too expensive equipment wise to retrofit the building for individual metering.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Call it something other than tabling please.  To table has directly opposite meanings in American and British, and since quite a few people here have British rather than American as their first language it would be nice to avoid predictable confusion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In the event that shua's lawsuit succeeds, a fix will be needed.  I have a proposed one, but it would be a pain for the SoFE to administer, so you might want to consult with Franzl to see if he has any better ideas.

Improvement of Election Certification Act

The Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act is amended by inserting the following as Clause 2a of Section 10 of that Act:

2a. In certifying the result the voting booth administrator shall provide a copy of each ballot that is in the voting booth.  Said copy may be in the form of a quote of the ballot, a screenshot of one or more ballots, or such other form that will provide a complete and accurate record of voter intent. This shall be done for all ballots, including any that are discounted under Clause 3 of this Section. In any lawsuit challenging the validity of certified election results, said copy shall be considered prima facie evidence of the state of the voting booth at the time of certification.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

i am not challenging this matter on the basis of the consolidated electoral system reform act. i am challenging it on the basis of our constitution. that is the thing that would have to be amended.

I do not believe you have any chance of persuading the court to apply Article V Section 2 Clause 8 to a ballot deleted after the vote has been certified.

You might have a chance of persuading the court that there is insufficient evidence that gporter's ballot existed to be counted and that therefore it should not be used to determine who won the election. (For that matter even if you succeed in your constitutional claim, and the Constitution needs amending so that it would not apply, I can easily see a future case where the reliability of what votes had been certified would come up, and my proposed bill would help establish a standard of evidence in such cases.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll admit that the relevant clause in the constitution is ambiguously worded, but it makes absolutely no sense for a change done after the conclusion of the election to affect the results of the election.  Hence, if a lawsuit is to be successful, it will be because the change creates doubt as to what the ballot contained at the conclusion of the election, not because said change requires the ballot to be thrown out.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My comment is directed solely at Clause 1 of Section 2

Total procurement of each variant of the F-35 shall be reduced by 25%, to be offset by purchase of additional F/A-18, F-16, A-10, and AV-8B aircraft.

Considering that the last new Harrier was built in 1997, any AV-8's that might be procured are going to have to come from buying used aircraft.  The UK stopped flying its Harriers a couple years ago, but they weren't built to the AV-8B standard, but their own British standard.

The A-10 situation is even more comical.  The last all new A-10 was built in 1984 and unlike the Harrier, there are no used foreign models to be bought.

At least the F-16 and F/A-18E/F are still in production.