HB 2016-1065 - Amendment to Art. 1, Sect. 4, of the Atlasian Constit. (2SENATE)

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

to

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Clyde1998 and Siren

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rationale for the bill fyi.

[Anna Komnene]

I'd like to co-sponsor this amendment if I can. 

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I am, of course, generally in favor of Virginia's proposed changes to Section 4. I do, however, feel that clauses 3 and 4 ought to be more specific so as to avoid any ambiguity - goodness knows we have enough of that already.

I would recommend the proposal be amended to read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a member of the House would be so kind as to sponsor this amendment on my behalf, I would greatly appreciate it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Bump?

[Goldwater]

I'll introduce Truman's amendment for him:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Virginia wanted me to post this for her, since she wasn't sure if she could post this here herself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for working on this amendment! However, this version again introduces similar problems:

1. "Activity" is not clearly defined. In this version, it is possible to give it a wide interpretation, just like before.My line was a little clumsy on this but I tried to narrow it down.

2. This version gives no power to the judicial branch to deny voting (for various disenfranchisement laws/regulations)

3. I'm not sure this gives the ability to ban campaigning in the voting booth, either. Perhaps they can't do it on their official ballot, but what if they make other posts in the same thread? Since it isn't the original, official ballot, the secretary would have no authority to throw it out based on separate posts in the polling place.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Thanks for the feedback, Virginia. For the record, you have every right to participate in Congressional debates if you so choose; in years past, it was something of a taboo for non-congresspersons to post on the AFG board, but those days are thankfully over.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see what you're getting at, but I'm wary of wading too deep into the weeds of bureaucratic regulations with a Constitutional amendment, and I'm not sure how to be more direct without creating structural insufficiencies that would need to be addressed for further amendments. Perhaps the best way to go about it would be to strike the term "activity" entirely and replace it with "frequency of posting."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first sentence clearly states that a citizen's right to vote may be rescinded "as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted," thus granting the courts power to restrict voting rights in accordance with federal law (as such a penalty would necessarily be imposed by the judiciary). If you mean that the court would be unable to restrict the voting rights of citizens who have not been convicted of a crime, then yes, you are correct; generally speaking, I think it bad policy to allow an unelected institution to rescind constitutional rights willy nilly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, at least, can be easily addressed by adding a clause defining all posts made in the Voting Booth as ballots and invalidating the vote of any citizen who posts multiple ballots in the Voting Booth.


Upon reading through the amendment a second time, it strikes me that it would also be advisable to add a clause to the second sentence stating "or having been edited more than twenty minutes after its posting in the voting booth."

[Virginiá]

I see what you're getting at, but I'm wary of wading too deep into the weeds of bureaucratic regulations with a Constitutional amendment, and I'm not sure how to be more direct without creating structural insufficiencies that would need to be addressed for further amendments. Perhaps the best way to go about it would be to strike the term "activity" entirely and replace it with "frequency of posting."

That would work. I just can't see the current form working as it presents the same problem we have now.

The first sentence clearly states that a citizen's right to vote may be rescinded "as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted," thus granting the courts power to restrict voting rights in accordance with federal law (as such a penalty would necessarily be imposed by the judiciary).

My apologies! I don't know how I glossed over that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, those seem like fine additions.

Thanks for your response Truman!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If I may, I would like to amend my amendment per the conversation above:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[NeverAgain]

If I may, I would like to amend my amendment per the conversation above:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll sponsor the amendment.

We'll now have a 24-hour vote on the amendment.

[Goldwater]

AYE

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Aye

[NeverAgain]

Aye!

[Anna Komnene]

Aye

[NeverAgain]

Aye!

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Aye!

Didn't you already vote?

[NeverAgain]

Aye!

Didn't you already vote?

I love the bill so much I had to vote again.

[Enduro]

Nay, I want to use whatever language I want.

[NeverAgain]

Due to the new Congress, I will allow for an extended period of 24 hours for this bill, for those who have not voted.

[White Trash]

Aye

[Mike Thick]

AYE

[Cashew]

AYE

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

>cough<

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

WE seem to go back and forth on chamber leader inactivity.