Amending the Constitution - Senate Powers

[Defarge]

Now that the Attorney General's amendment has recieved a majority, I urge my colleagues to join in finishing the senatorial powers amendment with all haste.  I support Ernest's amendment, clause 27 and all.

[King]

The PPT has to put up 2 public polls on each of the Peter Bell amendments.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And the Organized Party Amendment as well, s'il vous plait.

[King]

And the Organized Party Amendment as well, s'il vous plait.

OF COURSE, forgot about that.

[Bono]

The PPT has to put up 2 public polls on each of the Peter Bell amendments.

Aren't you forgetting something... Like senate vote?

[Defarge]

The PPT has to put up 2 public polls on each of the Peter Bell amendments.

Aren't you forgetting something... Like senate vote?

The Senate vote has already ocurred
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=12660.0

[Bono]

The PPT has to put up 2 public polls on each of the Peter Bell amendments.

Aren't you forgetting something... Like senate vote?

The Senate vote has already ocurred
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=12660.0

Sure, me bad, I misread it.

[Peter]

Well my two amendments have been sent of to Public Poll and the Senate appears to have ignored this thread for the past two days. Perhaps it would like to actually debate the provisions of the amendment so that all your pet projects can actually become law.

[JohnFKennedy]

Well my two amendments have been sent of to Public Poll and the Senate appears to have ignored this thread for the past two days. Perhaps it would like to actually debate the provisions of the amendment so that all your pet projects can actually become law.

Apologies, I have as of yet not had enough time to debate these issues, I had a competitive debate on monday and have another tomorrow for which I have been doing a huge amount of research.

[Peter]

Apologies, I have as of yet not had enough time to debate these issues, I had a competitive debate on monday and have another tomorrow for which I have been doing a huge amount of research.

Its fine if a few Senators are busy for a couple of days and can't devote a plethora of time to the Senate business, but it is clear from the other board and from activity on some legislation in here that some Senators do not appear to be too tight on time. I wish they would just dedicate some time to this rather pressing concern - none of your legislation will have any effect if you pass it.

[The Dowager Mod]

Well the PPT is the one to open debates and votes.
Personaly i think we should just vote on bonos amendment.

[Peter]

Well the PPT is the one to open debates and votes.

This is his thread and the way his original posts are worded would seem to suggest that the debate is open.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bonos amendment will have the following affect on statute:
The following are unconstitutional and will be permenantly struck:
1. Civil Unions Act
2. The Anti Drug Testing Act
3. Third Boss Abortion Act
4. The Death Penalty Abolition Act
5. The Health Care Reform Act of 2004
6. Marriage Equity Act
7. National Energy Act
8. Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act
Also in doubt:
1. Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004

In addition the Federal Activity Act is already unconstitutional via a different ruling that probably won't be dealt with under this ruling

Of legislation presently before the Senate, the following would be unconstitutional on its face:
1. Clean Energy Act
2. The Federal Unionization and Competitive Contracting Bill
In doubt:
1. The F-22 Bill

Of the legislation on the books, 9 or 10 of the 16 laws the Senate have passed will be permenantly struck. Of the bills presently before the Senate, 3 of the 4 are constitutionally suspect.

[The Dowager Mod]

Well the PPT is the one to open debates and votes.

This is his thread and the way his original posts are worded would seem to suggest that the debate is open.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bonos amendment will have the following affect on statute:
The following are unconstitutional and will be permenantly struck:
1. Civil Unions Act
2. The Anti Drug Testing Act
3. Third Boss Abortion Act
4. The Death Penalty Abolition Act
5. The Health Care Reform Act of 2004
6. Marriage Equity Act
7. National Energy Act
8. Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act
Also in doubt:
1. Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004

In addition the Federal Activity Act is already unconstitutional via a different ruling that probably won't be dealt with under this ruling

Of legislation presently before the Senate, the following would be unconstitutional on its face:
1. Clean Energy Act
2. The Federal Unionization and Competitive Contracting Bill
In doubt:
1. The F-22 Bill

Of the legislation on the books, 9 or 10 of the 16 laws the Senate have passed will be permenantly struck. Of the bills presently before the Senate, 3 of the 4 are constitutionally suspect.

heh funny but i opposed most of those anyway

[The Dowager Mod]

Well i'm no lawyer or anything so i wouldn't even know where to start. :/

[Peter]

Well i'm no lawyer or anything so i wouldn't even know where to start. :/

Thats understandable. I am not willing to court political controversy by simply introducing raw drafts into the Senate of my own political wishes since I am meant to be a non-partisan legal advisor to the branches of government. However, if the Senate decides what powers it wants (i.e. what fields of policy it wants to control), then I will put into constitutional language for you guys to pass.

[Defarge]

Mr. Attorney General, of the amendments currently before the senate, which one leaves the most pieces of legilsation legal and constitutional?

[Jake]

Well the PPT is the one to open debates and votes.

This is his thread and the way his original posts are worded would seem to suggest that the debate is open.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bonos amendment will have the following affect on statute:
The following are unconstitutional and will be permenantly struck:
1. Civil Unions Act
2. The Anti Drug Testing Act
3. Third Boss Abortion Act
4. The Death Penalty Abolition Act
5. The Health Care Reform Act of 2004
6. Marriage Equity Act
7. National Energy Act
8. Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act
Also in doubt:
1. Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004

In addition the Federal Activity Act is already unconstitutional via a different ruling that probably won't be dealt with under this ruling

Of legislation presently before the Senate, the following would be unconstitutional on its face:
1. Clean Energy Act
2. The Federal Unionization and Competitive Contracting Bill
In doubt:
1. The F-22 Bill

Of the legislation on the books, 9 or 10 of the 16 laws the Senate have passed will be permenantly struck. Of the bills presently before the Senate, 3 of the 4 are constitutionally suspect.

If that is the case, full speed ahead.  I only support 3 of those, so strike them all.

[Peter]

I would just like to correct my original advice on the Bono Amendment:
It does NOT render unconstitutional the Anti-Drug Testing Act.

The Ernest Amendment is probably the best in terms of maintaining Constitutionality, mostly because of its detail:
The following would be unconstitutional:
1. Boss Abortion Act [no abortion regulation clause]
2. Death Penalty Abolition Act [no regional sentencing restriction clause]
3. National Energy Act [the problem here is that clause 3 is a requirement on the Regions and also clause 8 is unauthorised spending]
4. Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004 [problem is that foreign aid that isnt for disasters of some kind is unauthorised; Clause (d) is an unauthorised requirement on the regions]

Other than that everything cuts constitutional muster.

Of the proposed legislation, only the Clean Energy Act would be unconstitutional.

As a note to Ernest I still oppose Section 1 Clause 17 on the grounds that we are only in need of one Court and an expansion of the Court system would be a joke in my opinion - its an elections sim not a judicial activism sim.

Fixing the problems with the two Energy Acts would require the Senate have the power to regulate national and regional energy policy, just so you know.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Ernest Amendment is probably the best in terms of maintaining Constitutionality, mostly because of its detail:
The following would be unconstitutional:
1. Boss Abortion Act [no abortion regulation clause]
2. Death Penalty Abolition Act [no regional sentencing restriction clause]
3. National Energy Act [the problem here is that clause 3 is a requirement on the Regions and also clause 8 is unauthorised spending]
4. Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004 [problem is that foreign aid that isnt for disasters of some kind is unauthorised; Clause (d) is an unauthorised requirement on the regions]

Other than that everything cuts constitutional muster.

Of the proposed legislation, only the Clean Energy Act would be unconstitutional.

As a note to Ernest I still oppose Section 1 Clause 17 on the grounds that we are only in need of one Court and an expansion of the Court system would be a joke in my opinion - its an elections sim not a judicial activism sim.

Fixing the problems with the two Energy Acts would require the Senate have the power to regulate national and regional energy policy, just so you know.

With a broad interpretation of my Section I Clause 5, The Boss Abortion Act might be found Constitutional on the grounds that it is declaring a certain class of fetuses to be Citizens via a broad application of the Naturalization and Alienation provision of that clause.  However, I don't think we should tempt the Court that way so it probably would be best if some explict language either detailing what constitutes Citizenship or giving the Senate the power to define it would be best, as I think that such a provision could be used to put Abortion resttictions into law without requiring an explicit constitutional provision.

Surely, you didn't expect my proposal to make the Death Penalty Abolition Act constitutional, did you?

Clause 3 of the National Energy Act is referring to small-r regions, not large-R Regions.  Even if it did, I think it would still be Constitutional under Section 1 Clause 9 of my proposal "To fix standards ... of such items of commerce as it deems needful throughout Atlasia." which incorporates extra language compared to the US Constituion's version of this clause.

Clause 8 of the National Energy Act is science-pork, and while I did not aim to make it unconstitutional, I won't shed tears that I appear to have done so.  Still adding, a clause to my proposal to make rscientific research legal would be easy to do.

As for the FPAA, foreign aid in general might be justified via a broad interpretation of Section 1 Clause 3 or Section 1 Clause 19 of my proposal, but it probably would be best to add an explicit clause allowing it.  The aid in question here might be able to use Section 1 Clause 14, at the least to the extent such funding is used for the educational activities of UNFPA.

Section (d) of the FPAA is overreaching if it were to apply to the regions.  In any case, the reason why the pro-choice movement favor such a provison of law in real life  is because of fears that it could be used to establish a backdoor assault on Roe v. Wade.  Given that the forum has prefered to attack Roe directly, I don't see the need for section (d) in the first place.

As for Section 1 Clause 17 Peter, I don't see any likelihood that the Senate will create additional judgeships for Forumites to fill.  At worst, they'll do like the original Judiciary Act of 1789 did and give the Supreme Court Justices double duty as Circuit Court judges.  In addition, this clause is needed to allow the Senate to debate, if it should so choose, whether to spend more or less money on Federal judges than is now spent.

[Peter]

Surely, you didn't expect my proposal to make the Death Penalty Abolition Act constitutional, did you?

I suppose the death penalty will have its uses when I decide to hang you for your treason

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Missed that. Should be constitutional with that.

As for your other points - I would prefer not to be bending over backwards at this point to justify various pieces of legislation under the Constitution, they'll be plenty of time for that later when I have to defend legislation that is passed after this amendment.

[Bono]

I'll add some stuff to my amendment then after I come back from school. But Ernest still needs to find a sponsor to tht ammendment, since he has no power to present laws. Anyways, I'll oppose it as long as Clause 27 of Section One is still there.

[The Dowager Mod]

I kind of have a problem with Clause 27 too.

[Siege40]

Right, I'll devote complete attention to this from here on out.

Siege

[Defarge]

With the Attorney General's assesment, I stand with other members of the Senate in support of Ernest's amendment.  We must put these amendments to the vote now in order to end the two weeks of frustration.

[Peter]

With the Attorney General's assesment, I stand with other members of the Senate in support of Ernest's amendment.  We must put these amendments to the vote now in order to end the two weeks of frustration.

Does the Senate want to include clauses allowing it to:
1. Fund scientific research
2. Provide general foreign aid

I think these would both be good ideas personally (the first certainly)

If the Senates going to bring this to a vote then great.