Constitutional Amendment on Poverty

[Gabu]

As introduced by Sen. Supersoulty*:

Section 1

The Congress shall have the right to approve any legislation that they see as being necessary and proper for the alleviation of poverty throughout Atlasia.

Section 2

As we recognize that not all conditions that result in poverty are the same, and thus not all possible programs will work for all individuals, it shall be the right of the Senate to create legislation that specifically targets certain groups or subpopulations of Atlasia.

Section 3

The Federal government shall have the right to sublet the responsibility of any programs or monies to the various regions, provided that the government of those regions approve of bearing the responsibility.

I hereby open debate on this amendment.

*This legislation is farther down in the introduction thread than another one, but this is essentially a modification of a previous introduced amendment, so I'm introducing this one first.

[Sam Spade]

This amendment is too vague and I will oppose it in this form.  Not only that, but I don't like the rather confusing language of the thing.

It sounds like an attempt to create a General Welfare clause, without saying "General Welfare Clause", specifically this part of Clause 2 here:

...it shall be the right of the Senate to create legislation that specifically targets certain groups or subpopulations of Atlasia.

Clause 3 tries to give the federal government control in spending matters over regional government provided that the regions approve.  How many regions must approve? What is the process?  In terms of appropriations, I believe things must be firm and clear, rather than vague and expansive.

Simply put, if we want to poverty as something the Senate has power over legislating, why can't we just add Poverty to the list of Unemployment, Disability, etc. that we have before, instead of including the rest of this rather expansive junk.

[MasterJedi]

I would have to agree fully with the honorable Sam Spade.

[MAS117]

I would have to agree fully with the honorable Sam Spade.

[Gabu]

I must say that I agree that section 1 is far too vague.  What's to stop Congress from saying, "We hereby establish a dictatorship because we think it will help alleviate poverty?"

[Bono]

As introduced by Sen. Supersoulty*:

Section 1

The Congress shall have the right to approve any legislation that they see as being necessary and proper for the alleviation of poverty throughout Atlasia.

Section 2

As we recognize that not all conditions that result in poverty are the same, and thus not all possible programs will work for all individuals, it shall be the right of the Senate to create legislation that specifically targets certain groups or subpopulations of Atlasia.

Section 3

The Federal government shall have the right to sublet the responsibility of any programs or monies to the various regions, provided that the government of those regions approve of bearing the responsibility.

I hereby open debate on this amendment.

*This legislation is farther down in the introduction thread than another one, but this is essentially a modification of a previous introduced amendment, so I'm introducing this one first.

You're(soulty) still bitter over the single mothers act?
Geez.

[DanielX]

I oppose this amendment strongly. Whatever measures to alleviate poverty that are acceptable (in my view) are already kosher with the Constitution.

[Colin]

I oppose this amendment on the grounds that both Senators Spade and Gabu have put forward. This is a basic attempt by Senator Supersoulty to try and add a general welfare clause without implicitly stating so.

I must say that I agree that section 1 is far too vague. What's to stop Congress from saying, "We hereby establish a dictatorship because we think it will help alleviate poverty?"

My thoughts exactly.

[Peter]

You're(soulty) still bitter over the single mothers act?
Geez.

It has to be said that your tactics were far from sincere: You sat silently during the debate, allowed the bill to pass without a squeak, and then challeneged it: You never raised the constitutional issues during debate.

[jokerman]

I give full support to this amendment, altough I would prefer if it was put into a less vague form.  I realize that this would make the unwed mothers protection constitutional, and that's precisely why I'm for it. 

[King]

If this passes, I will propose invading western Europe in the name of fighting poverty.

[MasterJedi]

If this passes, I will propose invading western Europe in the name of fighting poverty.

Seconded!

[Colin]

If this passes, I will propose invading western Europe in the name of fighting poverty.

Better yet we can declare that the Senate is now a for life position and abolish all elections...so that we can end poverty.

[King]

If this passes, I will propose invading western Europe in the name of fighting poverty.

Better yet we can declare that the Senate is now a for life position and abolish all elections...so that we can end poverty.

That just moved me into the Aye column

j/k

[Sam Spade]

Bumping for visibility, etc., answers to questions, potential revisions.

Or is this amendment dead?

[Gabu]

Or is this amendment dead?

That's up to Supersoulty, really.

[King]

Let us make it dead and vote.

Seriously, it has been over 48 hours with absolutely no real debate or amendments to it....

[12th Doctor]

My fellow Senators, the reason that we present legislation before this body is so that it might be discussed and improved upon.  This ammendment is not perfect, I realize that.  It should be obvious to anyone that any bill presented before this body, esspecially one of this magnitude, is not perfect.  I would, therefore, appreciate it if my fellow Senators would offer suggestions, rather than mock it, because I do believe that this is important legislation for us to consider and it is, in spirit, worthy of passage.  I will take any serious suggestion you might have into consideration.

[Gabu]

My fellow Senators, the reason that we present legislation before this body is so that it might be discussed and improved upon.  This ammendment is not perfect, I realize that.  It should be obvious to anyone that any bill presented before this body, esspecially one of this magnitude, is not perfect.  I would, therefore, appreciate it if my fellow Senators would offer suggestions, rather than mock it, because I do believe that this is important legislation for us to consider and it is, in spirit, worthy of passage.  I will take any serious suggestion you might have into consideration.

I'm not really sure.  I'd like to introduce one, but it seems to me that specifically enumerating all of the ways in which one might combat poverty would create one heck of a gigantic bill, and I don't see any other way that section 1 could be made less dangerous.

[12th Doctor]

My fellow Senators, the reason that we present legislation before this body is so that it might be discussed and improved upon.  This ammendment is not perfect, I realize that.  It should be obvious to anyone that any bill presented before this body, esspecially one of this magnitude, is not perfect.  I would, therefore, appreciate it if my fellow Senators would offer suggestions, rather than mock it, because I do believe that this is important legislation for us to consider and it is, in spirit, worthy of passage.  I will take any serious suggestion you might have into consideration.

I'm not really sure.  I'd like to introduce one, but it seems to me that specifically enumerating all of the ways in which one might combat poverty would create one heck of a gigantic bill, and I don't see any other way that section 1 could be made less dangerous.

The Constitution was a long bill, too, Senator.  I'm prepared to wait.

[Peter]

I consider Section 2 to be a danger here also: It effectively nullifies the equal protection clause as applied to all "poverty" legislation. It could soon become a justification for all manner of rascist, sexist, etc. legislation, and be completely unstoppable under the Constitution.

[12th Doctor]

This amendment is too vague and I will oppose it in this form.  Not only that, but I don't like the rather confusing language of the thing.

Which parts are confusing?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't get anything by you, Senator, can I?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you believe, therefore, that the problems that cause porverty for rurual farmers are the same ones that cause it for inner-city minorities?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The original idea is for individual regions to decide fore themselves, thus preserving federalism and in some degree "regional rights".  I hope that we can define this process through civil discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that that would be much more vauge than a bill that describes what everyones rights are in this process.  That was your beef with the Unwed Mothers Bill, wasn't it?

[12th Doctor]

I consider Section 2 to be a danger here also: It effectively nullifies the equal protection clause as applied to all "poverty" legislation. It could soon become a justification for all manner of rascist, sexist, etc. legislation, and be completely unstoppable under the Constitution.

True.  But I think that we can help to better define the terms.  Perhaps that would solve the problem.

[A18]

The equal protection clause should only apply to race, anyway. That was an activist ruling.

[12th Doctor]

Clause two is immportant, because, in the previous constitution, it was ruled that targeted poverty initiatives were unconstitutional.  I think that we need to get away from that thinking, because it should be obvious to anyone that the causes of poverty for one group are not the same as another.

Let's say that we want to produce a bill that helps inner-city groups, obviously that bill will not apply to other groups.  Or, what if we want to create a bill that helps mining communities.  Do we want a conartist from New York City to find a way to take advantage of it?  No.