The Legislative Sanity Project

[Lumine]

One of the clearest signs of the decadence that led to the current treasonous conspiracy has been the lack of reaction to legislation - both regional and federal - that has been enacted despite what should have been evident flaws (see: culture war nonsense, redundant dispositions, outright insane or trollish logic, and/or facilitating the actions of traitors), or that have revealed themselves to be functional to said traitors (see: the Posse Comitatus Protection Act that the Senate is thankfully repeating, or the failed Regional Rights Amendment).

This "Legislative Sanity Project" is an effort to compile said legislation that is current in the books, so as to recommend its repeal or amendment by the Senate or the appropiate regional legislature without having to resort to the use of flamethrowers. I'll be starting by taking a look at federal legislation first, but if anyone wants to contribute by posting examples of insane stuff that pushes conspiracy theories, allows for regional tyranny and autocracy, weakens the game's ability to respond to treason, engages in cultural war nonsense, breaches the Constitution, and so forth, that would be appreciated.

Mind you, this is just meant to be a list of stuff that could be overturned, nothing binding.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

I will be bringing in a new, expanded version of the Dumb Regulations Repeal 22: REACTIONARY if I find myself in the senate next session, or potentially in the white house.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I will be bringing in a new, expanded version of the Dumb Regulations Repeal 22: REACTIONARY if I find myself in the senate next session, or potentially in the white house.

I don't want a one man's effort, we need to do this together.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Posse Comitatus did have some justification considering the abuses wrought by the last outburst, owing to the fact that involved a top down tyranny from the Federal gov't alongside a regional component.

Sure it may have gone too far and limited the ability to respond in a crisis, but I think a more balanced restriction would certainly be appropriate.

The Regional Rights Amendment also has merits, independent of the extortion that took place over the last five months. I have long supported moving away from the current system where the "regions get the crumbs left over by the Federal government" and more towards a defined "we do a, b, c, you get x, y, z" kind of dynamic. I think that would be more stable long term for regional activity and remove a lot of confusion about what the regions can and cannot do. It would also eliminate the dynamic of the "Truman doctrine", which (and forgive me if this is horrendously oversimplified or misconstrued), basically amounted to "everyone do whatever the hell they want and nobody in DoJ will stop you".

I think Scott was genuinely interested in this approach as well, but the problem is, as always, no one can agree on the finer points and obviously the elephant in the room that poisoned the well six ways to Sunday.

It would be a mistake to assume that RRA was the "result" of the secession crisis, or "intended to facilitate secession", as opposed to a long standing desire that just got sucked up into the whirlwind as a "hoped for solution", then layered with 40D chess.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Unfortunately we're going to need a lot of changes we wouldn't have otherwise needed, including minimum uniform standards for elections. I do realize, to people like Yankee and LT who argued earnestly for more regional autonomy, that this is the last thing they would have wanted.

I am reminded of a discussion with DFW in 2017, where we were talking on IRC with Leinad and PiT and maybe a couple of others at that point. And he was asking how I could support Adam's "caps on regional legislatures", because its "anti-Regionalist".

And in the moment I just responded in the the most trollish way possible and say "I am not a regionalist, I'm a federalist". I think his brain exploded all over Texas when I told him that.

A "federalist" and a "regionalist" will be functionally the same, as long as the opponent is Al or Xahar, and the objective is to dismantle the regions, abolish regional Senate seats, hijack the regions to force a change in the amendment process, and so on and so forth.

But I opposed the Northeast secession, I opposed Lincoln secession, I opposed abolishing the Federal Gov't, I opposed moving to a confederation system, and I opposed Southern Secession, just the same.

I want the Regions to have defined rights and powers, but I want checks and balances first and foremost. That most certainly doesn't mean looking at a situation like the South's election calendar, lack of recalls etc etc and "shrugging your shoulders and saying but muh regions, nothing we can do". There are times when the Federal Government not only can, but should step in the reign in a region that has gone too far. Likewise, though, and by the same time token, there has to be restraints and limits on the Federal Government and what it does.

If we forget that, if we forget that need for balance, we will merely replace SNP with Dengcord, or Dengcord with SNP. Two sides of the same extremist coin. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

“Culture war nonsense”

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I need to take a check:

FIGHT RACISM AND SEXISM ACT

PREVENTING DEGENERACY ACT

MAD SCIENTIST PREVENTION ACT

but these three should definitely be repealed.

[OBD]

Can we repeal the horse wiener act

[NewYorkExpress]

How about an omnibus repeal of anything Reactionary has ever sponsored?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How about an omnibus repeal of anything Reactionary has ever sponsored?

He said he wants to avoid the blow torch approach.

Plus he spread the sponsorship out among a lot of people, myself included. Most of mine dealt with regulating monopolies, tech companies and the like.

Not stuff we should be repealing.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

How about an omnibus repeal of anything Reactionary has ever sponsored?

He said he wants to avoid the blow torch approach.

Plus he spread the sponsorship out among a lot of people, myself included. Most of mine dealt with regulating monopolies, tech companies and the like.

Not stuff we should be repealing.

I am against such an omnibus repeal.
Plus, as a co-worker of his in the Southern chamber, I worked well with him and if I was asked to vote again for a lot of the legislation he had a role in, I would do so again.
Yes, some of it is linked to culture wars. The hell if I care...

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

I will be bringing in a new, expanded version of the Dumb Regulations Repeal 22: REACTIONARY if I find myself in the senate next session, or potentially in the white house.

I don't want a one man's effort, we need to do this together.

Of course, I'm just saying one thing I'll end up covering for sure.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I'm against an omnibus repeal too, it's better to think this through and think better about "the merits" and "the demerits" of the bills. It's not a good precedent to purge someone's entire legacy, because of things that happened. It's better to carefully review it and make a case on case evaluation.

In general, i don't like "omnibus repeal acts" just out of principle and neither do i like the precedent of such. Otherwise it's just a cycle of "one comes to power, loses power, mass repeal everything that has been done".

I do agree that there are a lot of acts that shouldn't have been passed, some of them that even were supported by left wingers (both us and Labor) out of laziness, carelessness, defaitism and persuasion by the other side.

Let's just not become them (by fighting them).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Laki's right, we didn't purge Truman's entire legacy, even if some of the stuff at the end was terrible.

This isn't Stalinist USSR. We don't erase people from the pictures.

[Pericles]

How about an omnibus repeal of anything Reactionary has ever sponsored?

I did have a document listing the many bills he wrote that imo should be repealed. At the time, he mocked me for this and then changed the Senate rules to allow only two bills to be repealed at the time-a gross abuse of power. I would be very happy to get back to the table with the rest of the Senate and work through it in good faith.