Wiping all current laws. (ADOPTED)

[Senator Cris]

Delegate Oakvale suggested to wipe all laws approved in the latest years.
Obviously there's nothing in the Constitution about it, but it might be inserted.

[tmthforu94]

Considering that we will more than likely reduce the number of regions, leading to a legislative reset in the regions, I think a restart at the federal level is necessary as well.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Delegate Oakvale suggested to wipe all laws approved in the latest years.
Obviously there's nothing in the Constitution about it, but it might be inserted.

of course there is…?

you just don't include viii.1.4 in the new constitution

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Delegate Oakvale suggested to wipe all laws approved in the latest years.
Obviously there's nothing in the Constitution about it, but it might be inserted.

of course there is…?

you just don't include viii.1.4 in the new constitution

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Not including anything would leave the matter open to litigation and whatnot. It would be better to just include amend the clause to say that legislation is not carried over.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A legislative reboot is an absolute must: without it, any changes we might make to the structure of the federal government or the Regions will only slow the decline of Atlasia. We need to give a new generation of players the opportunity to shape the future of our Republic without the hinderance of 11 years worth of legislation.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I like Evergreen's idea in theory, but I agree with Classic Conservative that it would be overly confusing. Perhaps we could allow 2/3 of the Regional legislatures to veto federal legislation instead?

[Oakvale]

I'd also add that for simplicity's sake it would make sense to simply adopt the current US legislative situation, like we did back in 2004. It might be fun to have people argue about Obamacare.

[NeverAgain]

I'd also add that for simplicity's sake it would make sense to simply adopt the current US legislative situation, like we did back in 2004. It might be fun to have people argue about Obamacare.

Maybe parts of it, like non-controversial issues, then we argue on the controversial ones. (AKA A.C.A.)

[bore]

I fully support a legislative reboot:

I'd also add that for simplicity's sake it would make sense to simply adopt the current US legislative situation, like we did back in 2004. It might be fun to have people argue about Obamacare.

Maybe parts of it, like non-controversial issues, then we argue on the controversial ones. (AKA A.C.A.)

This is a really bad idea. For one thing the separating of controversial bills from non controversial ones will take ages, for another it would lead a massive gap in, say, healthcare policy as no one would know what the current status was, for another you can hardly say we are the US in 2015 but that certain bills didn't pass because that diverges the timeline from 2004 and finally it's precisely the controversial laws which we'd want to have on the books as those are the ones that would provoke debate by amending or repealing.

[Classic Conservative]

I'd also add that for simplicity's sake it would make sense to simply adopt the current US legislative situation, like we did back in 2004. It might be fun to have people argue about Obamacare.

I disagree it's our own country we aren't the U.S.

[Lincoln Republican]

I am completely in agreement with doing away with all existing laws passed under the current Atlasia and associated regions.

The NEW ATLASIA should reflect the new generation of players, and it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to accomplish this with the NEW ATLASIA and the NEW REGIONS being encumbered with years of past legislation.

And I say this in full knowledge of the fact that there is even a Northeast law on the books called The Winfield Doctrine, which would as well fall under this proposal. 

And nobody is going to want to go through legislation from the past and separate the sensible from the ridiculous, and this would be open for argument which legislation falls into which category.  Bedsides, some power obsessed Governor could simply veto the repeals anyway. 

I say let a NEW ATLASIA start from the beginning with a fresh mandate.  Let a NEW ATLASIA set the tone and have NEW debates for the future, not the past.

[Chief Justice windjammer]

I support it

[Marokai Backbeat]

If we're going to do this, then we should do this. A full on legislative reboot is something I support. I do have worry that it just going to create a bunch of easy low-hanging fruit and people will just immediately rush to re-enact s**t we already had, but people have been doing that for a long time anyway, so who cares.

[Lumine]

In full support of the reboot too. Perhaps we might see a legislative frenzy at the start, but that is far better than having very little room to manuever in terms of bills as is the case today.

[Senator Cris]

I'm supporting it as well.

[Lincoln Republican]

I as well, like Morikai, have fears that legislators may rush to bring back in some of the idiotic, ridiculous, disgusting, revolting, stupid legislation from the old Atlasia,

Hopefully they would have more sense than that, but you never know.

That is why I said before it would be good if we had some way of constitutionally preventing trivial junk from being introduced into the federal or regional legislatures.

[tmthforu94]

That is why I said before it would be good if we had some way of constitutionally preventing trivial junk from being introduced into the federal or regional legislatures.

That would be ideal, but I cannot think of any way of doing it that wouldn't be completely subjective.

[Associate Justice PiT]

That is why I said before it would be good if we had some way of constitutionally preventing trivial junk from being introduced into the federal or regional legislatures.

That would be ideal, but I cannot think of any way of doing it that wouldn't be completely subjective.

     Prohibit "suggestion laws" that don't actually accomplish anything (like defining regional symbols)?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I recently remembered this quote by Jefferson, and it reminded me of an idea of his that, while unworkable in the real world, might just be a good mechanism to have in Atlasia: the automatic reboot. In other words, we state in the Constitution that after a given period of time (say, three or four years), all federal and Regional laws currently on the books become null and void, allowing the new generation of players to start afresh. Thoughts?

[Clark Kent]

Obviously we should keep some laws (for example, laws against murder, rape, and robbery), but other than that, I support a clean slate.

[Lincoln Republican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I recently remembered this quote by Jefferson, and it reminded me of an idea of his that, while unworkable in the real world, might just be a good mechanism to have in Atlasia: the automatic reboot. In other words, we state in the Constitution that after a given period of time (say, three or four years), all federal and Regional laws currently on the books become null and void, allowing the new generation of players to start afresh. Thoughts?

This is one school of thought certainly worthy of consideration.

I bring up this matter because during the many times I have been elected to the Northeast Assembly, once a particular coalition got their hands on the levers of power, they abused this power and betrayed the region with legislation such as:

Passing a law that a certain filthy, vile, disgusting, obscene song sung by a filthy, vile, disgusting, obscene band, must be played over and over and over again every day to 5 and 6 year olds, and that anybody, parents, teachers, who opposed this filth would be subject to 10 years in prison and a $100,000.00 fine, or whatever.

Can you imagine a responsible Assembly actually passing such a travesty?

I was finally able to get a new Assembly to join me and repealing this atrocity.

But my point is, why should this stupidity and ignorance even be allowed to make it to the bill and debate stage?

The new constitution HAS to have a clause banning this type of behavior, surely.    

[Lincoln Republican]

Obviously we should keep some laws (for example, laws against murder, rape, and robbery), but other than that, I support a clean slate.

These laws can be passed in the new Atlasia.

If we started trying to pick  what stays and what goes we would have a group who thinks a certain law should stay and another group who thinks that same law should go.

[tmthforu94]

Obviously we should keep some laws (for example, laws against murder, rape, and robbery), but other than that, I support a clean slate.

The expectation would be that if we do a legislative repeal, we will simply revert to the status quo in America right now, then work from there. Laws are already in the books on those things.

[NeverAgain]

I fully support a legislative reboot:

I'd also add that for simplicity's sake it would make sense to simply adopt the current US legislative situation, like we did back in 2004. It might be fun to have people argue about Obamacare.

Maybe parts of it, like non-controversial issues, then we argue on the controversial ones. (AKA A.C.A.)

This is a really bad idea. For one thing the separating of controversial bills from non controversial ones will take ages, for another it would lead a massive gap in, say, healthcare policy as no one would know what the current status was, for another you can hardly say we are the US in 2015 but that certain bills didn't pass because that diverges the timeline from 2004 and finally it's precisely the controversial laws which we'd want to have on the books as those are the ones that would provoke debate by amending or repealing.

I can see what you mean. My point was that we need a base-line, but not to destroy all the work Atlasia has had put into it.

[tmthforu94]

So, correct me if I' wrong, but the only vote here should be simply whether or not to do it. If we do it, then we don't include a clause in the constitution stipulating otherwise. If we vote against wiping laws, then we add that clause. Are we also wanting to wipe judicial rulings?