Northeast Assembly Thread

[Cincinnatus]

Debate has ended.  We will now vote on the final bill.  Voting will last 24 hours.  Note:  No bills exist in the introduction thread, so if you have one ready, or want to make a new one, please introduce it before voting closes tomorrow.

The amendment was considered friendly, and thus is incorporated into the bill.  The final text reads as;

Castle Law

A BILL that enforces the Castle Doctrine, to protect owners of homes, businesses, vehicles, or pets, who use deadly or non-deadly force against intruders, from prosecution.

1. An intruder(s) must have made an attempt to unlawfully enter a person's home, business, or vehicle without the consent of the owner

2. The owner of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder(s) had intended to burgle and/or to commit a violent crime (i.e. murder, rape, or arson).

3. The owner may apply force if his or her pet is being harmed by intruder(s)

4. The intruder(s) must have acted illegally; i.e. the owner does not have the right to attack a police officer acting in the course of their legal duties.

5. The owner is not required to retreat from their home before using deadly or non-deadly force.

[Cincinnatus]

Aye

[Cincinnatus]

The Ayes are 4, and Nays are 0.  The bill passes.  We will now debate the bill proposed by the Speaker from NY.  Debate will last 48 hours.

Repeal Two Bills I don't like Act

A BILL to repeal two acts, that do not befit the great Northeast Region.

1.  The Prisoner Diet Reform Act is hereby repealed.
2.  The Northeastern Green Jobs Act is hereby repealed.

[Cincinnatus]

I talked to dallasfan about the Prison reform act, and we both believe it's still law.  Wormyguy introduced a bill to repeal it a while back, but it failed.  If anyone has any knowledge of its repeal I'll withdraw that part, otherwise, the bill is awful and should no longer plague this region

[Cincinnatus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok.  Well, I'll start by pointing out sections at a time.

Section 1; 35%, really?  We wanted to turn 35% of jobs into "Green" ones?  This doesn't seem to be free-market economics to me.  By the way, have we received any GM response to this?  I doubt we turned 35% of jobs into "Green" one's in a year.  That was ambitious, and no doubt unfruitful if any SOIA or GM responded to it.

Section 2;  Well, Ok.  I guess that's more acceptable than assuming the market wants 35% Green jobs.

Section 3;  Create new and green jobs?  To drop the unemployment below 5%?  That obvious didn't work.  Last I checked we were at what?  7.5 or there about?  Besides the fact that throwing out money for a highly expensive industry, for undoubtedly very little success, is ridiculous.

Section 4;  What incentives?  What are we offering?  Are we giving these businesses political favours, tax breaks,  bathroom quickies?  What's our bargain here exactly?  More importantly, what's it costing our citizens, and what's it costing the government? 

There's my quick mock up as to why I don't care for the bill.  I'm all for common sense approach to new fuels, infrastructure building, and smart forestry initiatives.  However, I don't much care for 35% of a market being taken over by Government induced "Green" jobs.  This bill lacks proper detail, initiative, and common-sense that would foster smart industrial innovation in this trade.  I'd rather consider offering subsidies or loans, then abide by such a strict 35%, much less one demanded by our Gov't. 

[Cincinnatus]

The bill was amended in the SRC report...

Thanks, but unfortunately it doesn't change my opinion of it very much. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cincinnatus]

The key word in the law being "goal"

So we agree the bill is a failure? 

[Cincinnatus]

Does anyone want to offer amendments, or should I assume we're all dead-set on our votes already?

[Cincinnatus]

Well, I don't expect this to pass in its current state.  I also made the title purposefully in order to get some sort of response.  In effect, I'm glad we at least had some productive response, which is more often than not lacking in this body.  I propose the following amendment;

Repeal of The Prisoner Diet Reform Act

A BILL to repeal an act, that does not befit the great Northeast Region.

1.  The Prisoner Diet Reform Act is hereby repealed.

[Cincinnatus]

Status:  Origination.  Incorporated.  This is the current and final text [unless another amendment is offered] of the bill;

Repeal of The Prisoner Diet Reform Act

A BILL to repeal an act, that does not befit the great Northeast Region.

1.  The Prisoner Diet Reform Act is hereby repealed.

[Cincinnatus]

I support The Northeastern Green Jobs Act

That's wonderful, but it's no longer a part of this legislation.

[Cincinnatus]

Why was The Prisoner Diet Reform Act passed, anyway?  Was it to save money, somehow?

I haven't read the debate about it, only the text.  Either way I don't care for the bill, and I hope we all vote to repeal it.

[Cincinnatus]

Debate has ended.  We will now vote on the final bill.  Voting will last 24 hours.

Repeal of The Prisoner Diet Reform Act

A BILL to repeal an act, that does not befit the great Northeast Region.

1.  The Prisoner Diet Reform Act is hereby repealed.

[Cincinnatus]

Aye

[Cincinnatus]

Voting has ended.  The Ayes are 3, Abstains 2, and Nays 0.  The bill passes. 

Debate will now begin on the bill introduced by the Representative from MA.  Debate will last 48 hours.

Undoing Unconstitutional, Undemocratic, and Evil "Review" (Binding Resolution)

The Northeast Assembly

1. Repeals the "Statutory Review Commission Report"
2. Expresses the sense of the Assembly that the creation of such a body in the first place, without any authority to do so in the Northeast constitution, is unconstitutional.

[Cincinnatus]

I understand you believe it to be unconstitutional, but I do not.  Repealing the SRC Report would be the single most devastating thing to happen to this region, next to our failure to pass a new constitution.  I would like to hear what Dallasfan has to say on this however, because he's become a big subject in this debate.

[Cincinnatus]

Debate has ended.  The Assembly will now vote on the bill in question.  Voting will last 24 hours.

Voting has ended.  The Ayes are 3, Abstains 2, and Nays 0.  The bill passes. 

Debate will now begin on the bill introduced by the Representative from MA.  Debate will last 48 hours.


Undoing Unconstitutional, Undemocratic, and Evil "Review" (Binding Resolution)

The Northeast Assembly

1. Repeals the "Statutory Review Commission Report"
2. Expresses the sense of the Assembly that the creation of such a body in the first place, without any authority to do so in the Northeast constitution, is unconstitutional.

[Cincinnatus]

Nay

[Cincinnatus]

The Ayes are 1, and Nays are 4.  The bill fails.  

The Assembly will now debate the Laptop Entitlement & Academic Reform Now Act proposed by the Representative from CT.  Debate will last 48 hours.

Laptop Entitlement & Academic Reform Now Act

A BILL to enrich education in the Northeast, by using both public funds and private donations for the creation of a new laptop distribution program.

This bill may be referred to as the LEARN Act.

Section 1.)
1. The Northeast government will accumulate $3.5 billion and fund it into a new program.

2. This program may be referred to the Northeast Student Laptop Distribution Agency (NSLDA).

3. Laptops that are distributed by this program may be obtained by either purchased or donated laptops from private companies.
3a. Private companies that donate laptops are entitled to tax credits per donation.

4. Eight years after the creation of this program, the Northeast government will determine if the NSLDA self-sustainable and whether or not it should be privatized.


Section 2.)
1. The NSLDA will distribute free laptops to students of all public schools in the Northeast (grades 6-12).

2. Parents/guardians of students who apply for a laptop must sign a written agreement to take full responsibility for the maintenance and condition of the laptop, during the time of which the laptop is entrusted with the student.  Parents/guardians must agree to pay all monetary costs if the laptop is damaged, lost, or stolen.

3. The laptops shall be in possession of the students who are enrolled in grades 6-12, and each student is responsible for returning the laptop (or paying all fines which may be owed) to his/her school before he/she graduates.

4. If the student should pay for loss or damage of the laptop, the money will be used to purchase a replacement.

5. Laptops that are returned may be given to future students.

[Cincinnatus]

Would the sponsor like to take a moment and speak on behalf of his bill?

[Cincinnatus]

Yes, computer skills are essential for our school children.  However, giving "personal" laptops to 6th graders is an invitation for not only wasted money that could be used in better ways, but a leap of faith.  More importantly, $3.5 billion is a substantial amount of money.  Without looking, I'm sure this is a sizable chunk of our education budget.  To me, the costs far outweigh the benefits.  We would be better off if schools created terminals that students could use to practice their computer skills, research, ect.

[Cincinnatus]

Perhaps 24 hours would be more suitable?

[Cincinnatus]

At the written Request of Representative Scott, debate is extended 24 hours.

[Cincinnatus]

Two points;

1.  Yes, I'd rather have a percentage. 

2.  I understand laptops is the point of this bill, but I'd rather offer funding for schools to create accessible computer terminals, in which students could sign out computer time, ect.  This would allow students of earlier ages who I don't feel can be responsible for a laptop, to obtain necessary skills in a technological age.  Plus, it would reduce costs that would come from buying quite a large quantity of laptops.

[Cincinnatus]

I'd have no problem creating an on-campus technology room/computer terminal.  However, I don't feel we should spend money to give 7-12 graders personal laptops.  I like that we're including laptop donations here, but schools can already accept these donations via school board. 

Computer skills, and technological literacy are essential for today's school children.  I can agree with you that this bill acknowledges an important issue, I just don't agree with the way in which this bill responds to the issue. 

Also, it would be nice if someone in the Assembly besides Scott and myself participated in debate.  I believe we have several members missing a couple vote now, as well as another two that haven't participated in debate for about, oh say, a month?

You must be logged in to read this quote.