Midwestern State Name Act

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Ilikeverin



Well, I miss trollism

[Maxwell]

If you have to copy pasta the persons name from their user, please do so.

[GAworth]

I can find nothing wrong with it.

[PJ]

This is a restriction on freedom of speech.

[Maxwell]

This is a restriction on freedom of speech.

PJ is 100% correct, and I encourage the Althing and every member of it to reject this. Yes, the states are re-named in the constitution. But this is police state stuff.

I also urge our Governor to reject this, but I assume he will.

[Thomas D]

Can we make sure the $100 fine goes to something cake related?

[minionofmidas]

A sad smilie is quite inappropriate for such an offense. Needs to be an angry emoticon. because using wrong state names makes emotica angry.

But this is a step in the right direction. Does it need signatures? x Lewis Trondheim

[Lumine]

While it looks pretty amusing (I believe ilikeverin is the only NM-AM who trolls while not being harmful to the game), I ask the Althing to turn this down right away. It restricts freedom of speech, it would allow the governor to create deputies with unlimited power to fine (and while having more power for me is always nice, this is absurd) and calling our states for those alternate names is not accomplishing anything.

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

[GAworth]

I didn't take that into consideration before, I will not support this bill.

[Kitteh]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

[PJ]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

I just love how you take an effort to be involved in the politics of every region except the one you're a member of.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

[Kitteh]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

I just love how you take an effort to be involved in the politics of every region except the one you're a member of.

[PJ]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

I just love how you take an effort to be involved in the politics of every region except the one you're a member of.

Did you forget you're a member of the Pacific Council?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

I just love how you take an effort to be involved in the politics of every region except the one you're a member of.

I just love how you're saying this to her despite the fact that you also live in the ing Pacific. I also love how you disparage the mere idea of people being involved in other regional politics. Thirdly, I love the fact that this logically extends to you leaving the United States (not Oregon) Election Atlas.

[Kitteh]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

I just love how you take an effort to be involved in the politics of every region except the one you're a member of.

Did you forget you're a member of the Pacific Council?

No, I forgot I've ever posted in the assembly of another region besides the Pacific since I left the mideast.

[PJ]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

I just love how you take an effort to be involved in the politics of every region except the one you're a member of.

I just love how you're saying this to her despite the fact that you also live in the ing Pacific. I also love how you disparage the mere idea of people being involved in other regional politics. Thirdly, I love the fact that this logically extends to you leaving the United States (not Oregon) Election Atlas.

I never said she couldn't be involved in other region's politics. I meant she is not doing her actual job, in the Pacific Council. I'm sure you would agree that a Pacific Councillor should donate more time to the to the Pacific Council than the Northeast Assembly and Midwest Althing. I'm glad that Drj is giving time to the game, I just feel as though she should be giving that same effort to the Pacific Region as well.

[Kitteh]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

I just love how you take an effort to be involved in the politics of every region except the one you're a member of.

I just love how you're saying this to her despite the fact that you also live in the ing Pacific. I also love how you disparage the mere idea of people being involved in other regional politics. Thirdly, I love the fact that this logically extends to you leaving the United States (not Oregon) Election Atlas.

I never said she couldn't be involved in other region's politics. I meant she is not doing her actual job, in the Pacific Council. I'm sure you would agree that a Pacific Councillor should donate more time to the to the Pacific Council than the Northeast Assembly and Midwest Althing. I'm glad that Drj is giving time to the game, I just feel as though she should be giving that same effort to the Pacific Region as well.

First of all, I have as many bills as you do in the legislative queue and zero missed votes in the Pacific this term. Second of all, when did I post in the NE assembly? 

[PJ]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

I just love how you take an effort to be involved in the politics of every region except the one you're a member of.

Did you forget you're a member of the Pacific Council?

No, I forgot I've ever posted in the assembly of another region besides the Pacific since I left the mideast.

I'd like to file a brief in this case (ftr, I was not one of the people who PM'd dallas about this):

If you look at Article VI, which contains the clause in question, it appears that the rights enumerated by the Article are not intended to apply solely to citizens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only other clause in this article which mentions "citizens" is the right to vote, which is a right that by necessity must be limited only to citizens. In fact, the right to vote is limited to Northeast citizens by a separate clause, Article V Section 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be redundant for the constitution to specify in both 5.5 and 6.3 that only citizens shall have the right to vote. Therefore, the only logical conclusion was that the use of the term "citizens" in 6.3 was not to limit the right to vote only to citizens, it was to guarantee citizens the right to vote without necessarily implying that others cannot be granted that right (for example, by the legislature in a statutory law, not a constitutional amendment, although that would take an amendment to 5.5). In other words, the use of "citizens" is an inclusionary, not exclusionary, term, which differentiates this section from 5.5 which excludes the right to vote from others.

As this is the only other use of the term "citizens" in Article VI, aside from the Right to Privacy Section in question in this case, it is reasonable to assume that the same definition is intended for the use of the term "citizens" in Section 5. Thus the use of "citizens" in this Section is not intended to limit the right to privacy only to citizens, but to guarantee the right to privacy to citizens without necessarily excluding others from that right or excluding harm done to non-citizens from constituting a valid reason to impede on a citizen's right to privacy.

The other piece of the constitution relevant to this case is the beginning of Article VI, which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This explicitly states that the rights granted below it are the inalienable rights of the people of the Northeast, not just Northeast citizens. The legal definition of "person" is an extremely complicated subject too much to get into here. However, I would submit to the court that the Northeast has already granted animals some rights in the Animal Protection Act, and that this should be considered sufficient evidence that animals are at least partly considered legal persons under Northeast law. Thus, the statement that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights apply to "the people" of the Northeast guarantees some level of protection of these rights for animals, where feasible and applicable.

Considering all of this, I believe that the act of bestiality meets the standard of an action that "directly harm[ s] another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom" as the writers of this Constitution intended that clause to be interpreted, and thus that the Bestiality Criminalization Act is constitutional.

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

Yet I can't find a single post in the 7th Pacific Council thread.

[Kitteh]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

I just love how you take an effort to be involved in the politics of every region except the one you're a member of.

Did you forget you're a member of the Pacific Council?

No, I forgot I've ever posted in the assembly of another region besides the Pacific since I left the mideast.

I'd like to file a brief in this case (ftr, I was not one of the people who PM'd dallas about this):

If you look at Article VI, which contains the clause in question, it appears that the rights enumerated by the Article are not intended to apply solely to citizens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only other clause in this article which mentions "citizens" is the right to vote, which is a right that by necessity must be limited only to citizens. In fact, the right to vote is limited to Northeast citizens by a separate clause, Article V Section 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be redundant for the constitution to specify in both 5.5 and 6.3 that only citizens shall have the right to vote. Therefore, the only logical conclusion was that the use of the term "citizens" in 6.3 was not to limit the right to vote only to citizens, it was to guarantee citizens the right to vote without necessarily implying that others cannot be granted that right (for example, by the legislature in a statutory law, not a constitutional amendment, although that would take an amendment to 5.5). In other words, the use of "citizens" is an inclusionary, not exclusionary, term, which differentiates this section from 5.5 which excludes the right to vote from others.

As this is the only other use of the term "citizens" in Article VI, aside from the Right to Privacy Section in question in this case, it is reasonable to assume that the same definition is intended for the use of the term "citizens" in Section 5. Thus the use of "citizens" in this Section is not intended to limit the right to privacy only to citizens, but to guarantee the right to privacy to citizens without necessarily excluding others from that right or excluding harm done to non-citizens from constituting a valid reason to impede on a citizen's right to privacy.

The other piece of the constitution relevant to this case is the beginning of Article VI, which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This explicitly states that the rights granted below it are the inalienable rights of the people of the Northeast, not just Northeast citizens. The legal definition of "person" is an extremely complicated subject too much to get into here. However, I would submit to the court that the Northeast has already granted animals some rights in the Animal Protection Act, and that this should be considered sufficient evidence that animals are at least partly considered legal persons under Northeast law. Thus, the statement that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights apply to "the people" of the Northeast guarantees some level of protection of these rights for animals, where feasible and applicable.

Considering all of this, I believe that the act of bestiality meets the standard of an action that "directly harm[ s] another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom" as the writers of this Constitution intended that clause to be interpreted, and thus that the Bestiality Criminalization Act is constitutional.

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

Yet I can't find a single post in the 7th Pacific Council thread.

Because there was a backlog of bills from last session so the one I've introduced last season hasn't even been brought up yet by a certain speaker of the council?

[PJ]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

I just love how you take an effort to be involved in the politics of every region except the one you're a member of.

Did you forget you're a member of the Pacific Council?

No, I forgot I've ever posted in the assembly of another region besides the Pacific since I left the mideast.

I'd like to file a brief in this case (ftr, I was not one of the people who PM'd dallas about this):

If you look at Article VI, which contains the clause in question, it appears that the rights enumerated by the Article are not intended to apply solely to citizens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only other clause in this article which mentions "citizens" is the right to vote, which is a right that by necessity must be limited only to citizens. In fact, the right to vote is limited to Northeast citizens by a separate clause, Article V Section 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be redundant for the constitution to specify in both 5.5 and 6.3 that only citizens shall have the right to vote. Therefore, the only logical conclusion was that the use of the term "citizens" in 6.3 was not to limit the right to vote only to citizens, it was to guarantee citizens the right to vote without necessarily implying that others cannot be granted that right (for example, by the legislature in a statutory law, not a constitutional amendment, although that would take an amendment to 5.5). In other words, the use of "citizens" is an inclusionary, not exclusionary, term, which differentiates this section from 5.5 which excludes the right to vote from others.

As this is the only other use of the term "citizens" in Article VI, aside from the Right to Privacy Section in question in this case, it is reasonable to assume that the same definition is intended for the use of the term "citizens" in Section 5. Thus the use of "citizens" in this Section is not intended to limit the right to privacy only to citizens, but to guarantee the right to privacy to citizens without necessarily excluding others from that right or excluding harm done to non-citizens from constituting a valid reason to impede on a citizen's right to privacy.

The other piece of the constitution relevant to this case is the beginning of Article VI, which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This explicitly states that the rights granted below it are the inalienable rights of the people of the Northeast, not just Northeast citizens. The legal definition of "person" is an extremely complicated subject too much to get into here. However, I would submit to the court that the Northeast has already granted animals some rights in the Animal Protection Act, and that this should be considered sufficient evidence that animals are at least partly considered legal persons under Northeast law. Thus, the statement that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights apply to "the people" of the Northeast guarantees some level of protection of these rights for animals, where feasible and applicable.

Considering all of this, I believe that the act of bestiality meets the standard of an action that "directly harm[ s] another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom" as the writers of this Constitution intended that clause to be interpreted, and thus that the Bestiality Criminalization Act is constitutional.

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

Yet I can't find a single post in the 7th Pacific Council thread.

Because there was a backlog of bills from last session so the one I've introduced last season hasn't even been brought up yet by a certain speaker of the council?

We are currently debating a comprehensive constitutional amendment, as well as an the Pacific Speed Limit Act. We'd love your input.

[Kitteh]

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

I just love how you take an effort to be involved in the politics of every region except the one you're a member of.

Did you forget you're a member of the Pacific Council?

No, I forgot I've ever posted in the assembly of another region besides the Pacific since I left the mideast.

I'd like to file a brief in this case (ftr, I was not one of the people who PM'd dallas about this):

If you look at Article VI, which contains the clause in question, it appears that the rights enumerated by the Article are not intended to apply solely to citizens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only other clause in this article which mentions "citizens" is the right to vote, which is a right that by necessity must be limited only to citizens. In fact, the right to vote is limited to Northeast citizens by a separate clause, Article V Section 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be redundant for the constitution to specify in both 5.5 and 6.3 that only citizens shall have the right to vote. Therefore, the only logical conclusion was that the use of the term "citizens" in 6.3 was not to limit the right to vote only to citizens, it was to guarantee citizens the right to vote without necessarily implying that others cannot be granted that right (for example, by the legislature in a statutory law, not a constitutional amendment, although that would take an amendment to 5.5). In other words, the use of "citizens" is an inclusionary, not exclusionary, term, which differentiates this section from 5.5 which excludes the right to vote from others.

As this is the only other use of the term "citizens" in Article VI, aside from the Right to Privacy Section in question in this case, it is reasonable to assume that the same definition is intended for the use of the term "citizens" in Section 5. Thus the use of "citizens" in this Section is not intended to limit the right to privacy only to citizens, but to guarantee the right to privacy to citizens without necessarily excluding others from that right or excluding harm done to non-citizens from constituting a valid reason to impede on a citizen's right to privacy.

The other piece of the constitution relevant to this case is the beginning of Article VI, which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This explicitly states that the rights granted below it are the inalienable rights of the people of the Northeast, not just Northeast citizens. The legal definition of "person" is an extremely complicated subject too much to get into here. However, I would submit to the court that the Northeast has already granted animals some rights in the Animal Protection Act, and that this should be considered sufficient evidence that animals are at least partly considered legal persons under Northeast law. Thus, the statement that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights apply to "the people" of the Northeast guarantees some level of protection of these rights for animals, where feasible and applicable.

Considering all of this, I believe that the act of bestiality meets the standard of an action that "directly harm[ s] another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom" as the writers of this Constitution intended that clause to be interpreted, and thus that the Bestiality Criminalization Act is constitutional.

As a matter of fact, I want to amend the constitution to change the names back to the originals. Fun as it may be to have different names, it serves no real purpose and it creates confusion.

This is literally the most disgusting thing I have read in my entire time in Atlasia.

Yet I can't find a single post in the 7th Pacific Council thread.

Because there was a backlog of bills from last session so the one I've introduced last season hasn't even been brought up yet by a certain speaker of the council?

We are currently debating a comprehensive constitutional amendment, as well as an the Pacific Speed Limit Act. We'd love your input.

The Speed Limit Act is waiting for Tyrion's redrafting, and I've posted in the constitutional amendment thread. I know you love to masturbate to the fact that the NMAM "isn't active" but please learn to distinguish your fantasies from reality.

[Flake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6YR9nBSws ^why _can't ^we _be ^friends

[ilikeverin]

Note that violators of this law can also be fined with a "" smiley, which is significantly cheaper (but infinitely more damning!) than a $100 fine.  I should think that my fellow registered citizens might enjoy seeing an end to terrible besmirching of our beautiful state names by such contemptibles as one "homelycooking", who dares say the following:

As far as the Census Bureau is concerned, the Midwest is composed of ten states: Kansas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Iowa, Wyoming, Minnesota and Nebraska.

Such insolence should not be tolerated!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6YR9nBSws ^why _can't ^we _be ^friends

^Especially _in ^the _Midwest *hughughug*

[President Tyrion]

I would approve of an optional frowny face, because that's just fun.

Not sure about the more police state sort of stuff like a real fine, though.