High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating]

[Alexander Hamilton]

The JCP has 7 Senators.

Marokai
Fritz
Franken
Hashemite
Franzl
afleitch
MaxQue

[Hash]

Amendments offered:

Section 1(4) is amended to read: "Nominees to the HAEV shall be subject to a confirmation process as determined by the OSPR. The Senate must confirm the nominee by a two-thirds vote in favor."

Clause 5 is added to Section 2: "The HAEV shall choose a presiding officer to ensure the proper functioning of the body. The HAEV shall create binding guidelines before acting in its designated capacity, the institution and future amendment of which must be affirmed by two-thirds of the Senate."

[Franzl]

Amendments offered:

Section 1(4) is amended to read: "Nominees to the HAEV shall be subject to a confirmation process as determined by the OSPR. The Senate must confirm the nominee by a two-thirds vote in favor."

Clause 5 is added to Section 2: "The HAEV shall choose a presiding officer to ensure the proper functioning of the body. The HAEV shall create binding guidelines before acting in its designated capacity, the institution and future amendment of which must be affirmed by two-thirds of the Senate."

Since you are the sponsor, this will be considered adopted unless someone rejects within 24 hours.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would like to say... I support this bill. I will likely not be able to vote on it, but I support it's passage.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I would like to say... I support this bill. I will likely not be able to vote on it, but I support it's passage.

Thank you very much. The current election blatantly shows how much this bill is needed.

[Purple State]

With those changes, this body will now be considerably more structured and efficient. It should also help the Court determine whether the body is acting within its limits.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Shouldn't this have to be an amendment?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Shouldn't this have to be an amendment?

Nice try, I know you would love to get our hands on ratification to block it with your zombies, but I see no reason why this has to be an Amendment.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Shouldn't this have to be an amendment?

Nice try, I know you would love to get our hands on ratification to block it with your zombies, but I see no reason why this has to be an Amendment.

There is no where in the Constitution where I can find text that says the Senate has any authority to designate a body to edit voter rolls and determine voter eligibility. This would require a Constitutional amendment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If nobody has anything to add, I'd like Mr PPT to open the final vote. There are 8 Senators so 5 votes are needed, right ?

[Alexander Hamilton]

This "bill" has to be an amendment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This "bill" has to be an amendment.

Please stop talking. You know nothing about Atlasian Constitution and procedures, nor you care about.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This "bill" has to be an amendment.

Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3:
A voter registration shall only remain valid if the voter remains an active member of the Forum at large. The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This "bill" has to be an amendment.

Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3:
A voter registration shall only remain valid if the voter remains an active member of the Forum at large. The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation.

This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This "bill" has to be an amendment.

Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3:
A voter registration shall only remain valid if the voter remains an active member of the Forum at large. The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation.

This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents.

You really need to learn how to read. This bill creates an organization which shall be made up of three individuals (as last I read) which shall look over the activity of each individual brought forward, and remove them from the voter rolls if there is unanimous agreement.

In other words, defining activity requirements, totally in the Senate's authority.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This "bill" has to be an amendment.

Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3:
A voter registration shall only remain valid if the voter remains an active member of the Forum at large. The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation.

This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents.

You really need to learn how to read. This bill creates an organization which shall be made up of three individuals (as last I read) which shall look over the activity of each individual brought forward, and remove them from the voter rolls if there is unanimous agreement.

In other words, defining activity requirements, totally in the Senate's authority.

This doesn't define anything at all. It simply produces a body that can do whatever it wants.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted.

"Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted.

"Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine.

Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted.

"Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine.

Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization.

I can promise you it won't be personal at all. If someone is active at the forum at large, then I would see no reason to be against their appeal.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted.

"Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine.

Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization.

I can promise you it won't be personal at all. If someone is active at the forum at large, then I would see no reason to be against their appeal.

Active? Why should people be forced to post? A lot of people like to just read. The JCP has plenty of voters like that. I never posted on this site until I was told to and now I post too much. As I told Yankee, I never had anything to say when I first signed up so of course I didn't post.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted.

"Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine.

Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization.

I can promise you it won't be personal at all. If someone is active at the forum at large, then I would see no reason to be against their appeal.

Active? Why should people be forced to post? A lot of people like to just read. The JCP has plenty of voters like that. I never posted on this site until I was told to and now I post too much. As I told Yankee, I never had anything to say when I first signed up so of course I didn't post.

I'll let this post speak for itself. I don't think I have to argue against someone who is actively defending people who don't post at all.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted.

"Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine.

Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization.

I can promise you it won't be personal at all. If someone is active at the forum at large, then I would see no reason to be against their appeal.

Active? Why should people be forced to post? A lot of people like to just read. The JCP has plenty of voters like that. I never posted on this site until I was told to and now I post too much. As I told Yankee, I never had anything to say when I first signed up so of course I didn't post.

I'll let this post speak for itself. I don't think I have to argue against someone who is actively defending people who don't post at all.

What should I care if people post 5 times a week or 50 times a day?

Maybe they don't post, cuz they, um, have a job, or something normal like that.

[Purple State]

Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.

This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction.