Congressional Discussion Thread

[Harvey Updyke Jr🌹]

Our hands were forced by bad faith tactics. If you want to place the blame on someone, pick the person who recruited from alt-right discords.

[Continential]

Our hands were forced by bad faith tactics. If you want to place the blame on someone, pick the person who recruited from alt-right discords.

LTE isn't a alt-right discord. I've been on it.

[SevenEleven]

Our hands were forced by bad faith tactics. If you want to place the blame on someone, pick the person who recruited from alt-right discords.

LTE isn't a alt-right discord. I've been on it.

Conservacord is.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Our hands were forced by bad faith tactics. If you want to place the blame on someone, pick the person who recruited from alt-right discords.

LTE isn't a alt-right discord. I've been on it.

Conservacord is.

The ironic thing is Conservacord is overwhelming composed of pre-existing or former Atlas posters unless that has shifted in the last few months.

[SevenEleven]

Leave of absence from Thursday through Sunday. I might pop in every once a while on mobile but I will be away from the computer. Thanks, see you all soon!

-Senator SevenEleven

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Trouble in Fremontian paradise,  General "I have suppressed the centralist element"?

The communists and the civil libertarians are confederating in opposition to regional rights. Fortunately, THE PEOPLE are on my side! I will respond with aggressive Jeffersonian measures.

The downfall of professing to be a regionalist is that it is kind of like professing to be a libertarian. Their is a presumption of absolutism involved and then you fall into a trap whenever there is some instance where absolute regions uber alles necessarily has to fall by the wayside. It is why I told you when you harped on being a "true regionalist" against "federalism" that true regionalism would degenerate quickly into secessionism when taken to its extreme ends.

Ultimately there are some areas where some form of compromise are unavoidable, but fortunately, I'm a man who doesn't have to explain the contradictions because unlike "regionalism", "federalism" doesn't create such a trap inducing complication. What it does do is ask the question not unlike that of WW2 era "Is this trip really worth it", "Is this centralism necessary here?" with the end goal of achieving a healthy balance.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Trouble in Fremontian paradise,  General "I have suppressed the centralist element"?

The communists and the civil libertarians are confederating in opposition to regional rights. Fortunately, THE PEOPLE are on my side! I will respond with aggressive Jeffersonian measures.

The downfall of professing to be a regionalist is that it is kind of like professing to be a libertarian. Their is a presumption of absolutism involved and then you fall into a trap whenever there is some instance where absolute regions uber alles necessarily has to fall by the wayside. It is why I told you when you harped on being a "true regionalist" against "federalism" that true regionalism would degenerate quickly into secessionism when taken to its extreme ends.

Ultimately there are some areas where some form of compromise are unavoidable, but fortunately, I'm a man who doesn't have to explain the contradictions because unlike "regionalism", "federalism" doesn't create such a trap inducing complication. What it does do is ask the question not unlike that of WW2 era "Is this trip really worth it", "Is this centralism necessary here?" with the end goal of achieving a healthy balance.

I have no idea how any of this is relevant.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Trouble in Fremontian paradise,  General "I have suppressed the centralist element"?

The communists and the civil libertarians are confederating in opposition to regional rights. Fortunately, THE PEOPLE are on my side! I will respond with aggressive Jeffersonian measures.

The downfall of professing to be a regionalist is that it is kind of like professing to be a libertarian. Their is a presumption of absolutism involved and then you fall into a trap whenever there is some instance where absolute regions uber alles necessarily has to fall by the wayside. It is why I told you when you harped on being a "true regionalist" against "federalism" that true regionalism would degenerate quickly into secessionism when taken to its extreme ends.

Ultimately there are some areas where some form of compromise are unavoidable, but fortunately, I'm a man who doesn't have to explain the contradictions because unlike "regionalism", "federalism" doesn't create such a trap inducing complication. What it does do is ask the question not unlike that of WW2 era "Is this trip really worth it", "Is this centralism necessary here?" with the end goal of achieving a healthy balance.

I have no idea how any of this is relevant.

Its relevant because her argument against you is that you are using regionalism as an escape hatch from Freedom of Speech. You disagree with this obviously, but matter of when does regionalism stand and when it does not is very relevant for a prominent figure who just so recently made a huge point of professing himself to be a "true adherent of regionalism".

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Do the true adherents of regionalism support regions deciding their abortion laws, and will they put their money where their mouth is?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Trouble in Fremontian paradise,  General "I have suppressed the centralist element"?

The communists and the civil libertarians are confederating in opposition to regional rights. Fortunately, THE PEOPLE are on my side! I will respond with aggressive Jeffersonian measures.

The downfall of professing to be a regionalist is that it is kind of like professing to be a libertarian. Their is a presumption of absolutism involved and then you fall into a trap whenever there is some instance where absolute regions uber alles necessarily has to fall by the wayside. It is why I told you when you harped on being a "true regionalist" against "federalism" that true regionalism would degenerate quickly into secessionism when taken to its extreme ends.

Ultimately there are some areas where some form of compromise are unavoidable, but fortunately, I'm a man who doesn't have to explain the contradictions because unlike "regionalism", "federalism" doesn't create such a trap inducing complication. What it does do is ask the question not unlike that of WW2 era "Is this trip really worth it", "Is this centralism necessary here?" with the end goal of achieving a healthy balance.

I have no idea how any of this is relevant.

Its relevant because her argument against you is that you are using regionalism as an escape hatch from Freedom of Speech. You disagree with this obviously, but matter of when does regionalism stand and when it does not is very relevant for a prominent figure who just so recently made a huge point of professing himself to be a "true adherent of regionalism".

Well, yes, obviously. And if it really were a free speech issue, legislation authorizing the regions to regulate tobacco marketing would be inoperable, since legislation cannot override the constitution. I do not believe any of this is inconsistent with my public position on regionalism.

Do the true adherents of regionalism support regions deciding their abortion laws, and will they put their money where their mouth is?

I have supported regionalizing abortion since 2015, which is why I have not sued you, you might have noticed.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Did Congress make Juneteenth a federal holiday in game?

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

If we're gonna make changes to legislation we've already passed such as repealing them, can the authors of those bills at least provide the link(s) to that piece(s) of legislation they're trying to change?

[Poirot]

Does it take a constitutional amendment to have a new state in Atlasia, Greenland for example. It seems the Senate can admit new state but the list of regions, subregions and states is explicitly described in the constitution.

So if the Senate approves a new state, can it do it without constituional amendment?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Per the Constitution:

"The Senate shall have the power, except where limited elsewhere by this Constitution,
...
to admit new states and territories to the Union;"

and

"New states may be admitted by the Senate into this Union, and apportioned among the several Regions as may be appropriate; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the Regions concerned as well as of the Senate."


Both clauses here suggest a new amendment is not required. When Labor gave 3 new States to Fremont, 1 to Lincoln, and 0 to the South in 2020, they did so by statute without an amendment. Since the South was cheated out of any new states in 2020, allowing the South to pay for the privilege of adding one is more than fair and appropriate. And geography is not a factor considering Lincoln includes the Virgin Islands.

[Poirot]

On the judicial reform amendment...

Amendment is adopted without a word. No debate. Nobody speaking for or against it. It's disappointing.

vi. to which an NPC unrepresented by a player shall be a party.

This is going into parrallel universe. The court should be for real people.

The amendment is getting worse. In the latest version there is no reappointment possible so basically it is to kick out most of the justices. This is against the term of the contract when they were appointed.

[Poirot]

I have a comment / question on the Regional Rights Amendment being debated in the Senate. The explanation states the amendment gives regions internal election oversight for non-federal elections.

The text of the amendment is: "and the time, place, manner, and all other responsibilities of conducting Regional, State, and local elections."

Some federal Senate contests are run on the regions election ballot. If those seats are considered non-federal elections, regionas could change time, place and manner of those elections?

If it would be the case under the amendment I oppose that. We have had this discussion before, maybe it was in the last constitutional convention. Some wanted a region to decide how to elect the regional senator. It could be named by the regional council for example. I think it is best to have an election by the voters in this election game. And it is more practical to have senate elections at the same time everywhere and not have one or two weeks difference (assuming the federal constitution could state the month of election and duration of a mandate).

[West_Midlander]

I have a comment / question on the Regional Rights Amendment being debated in the Senate. The explanation states the amendment gives regions internal election oversight for non-federal elections.

The text of the amendment is: "and the time, place, manner, and all other responsibilities of conducting Regional, State, and local elections."

Some federal Senate contests are run on the regions election ballot. If those seats are considered non-federal elections, regionas could change time, place and manner of those elections?

If it would be the case under the amendment I oppose that. We have had this discussion before, maybe it was in the last constitutional convention. Some wanted a region to decide how to elect the regional senator. It could be named by the regional council for example. I think it is best to have an election by the voters in this election game. And it is more practical to have senate elections at the same time everywhere and not have one or two weeks difference (assuming the federal constitution could state the month of election and duration of a mandate).

I'm not a constitutional expert but I would think those races count as federal since they choose federal officeholders in the federal Senate.

[Poirot]

Maybe writing something like this, speaking of regional offices would remove possible misunderstanding.

of conducting elections for Regional, State, and local offices

[West_Midlander]

Maybe writing something like this, speaking of regional offices would remove possible misunderstanding.

of conducting elections for Regional, State, and local offices

OK. I introduced an amendment to that effect.

[Poirot]

Thank you for clarifying the matter.

[ReallySuper]

so first of all i want to thank scott for finally addressing this gap that has gone ignored since... the founding of atlasia apparently:

AN AMENDMENT
To recognize Indigenous Atlasian Tribes

Be it enacted by two-thirds of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled, and at least two-thirds of the Regions henceforth;

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Native Atlasian Tribes Amendment

Section 2. Constitutional recognition and Senate power to authorize Tribal relations

Section 3 of the Fifth Constitution is hereby amended;

The Senate shall have the power, except where limited elsewhere by this Constitution,
to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to distribute the revenue thus collected;
to regulate foreign trade and inter-regional commerce, as well as the Native Tribes;
to establish uniform laws of naturalization;
[snip]

This Amendment formally enshrines Native Tribes in the Constitution, affirming current real-life relations thereof to be legal as well as to enable Senate power for the advancement of Indigenous rights.

but i think something like this would be a bit better:

AN AMENDMENT
To recognize the Indigenous Nations of Atlasia

Be it enacted by two-thirds of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled, and at least two-thirds of the Regions henceforth;

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Indigenous Nations Relations Amendment

Section 2. Constitutional recognition of and Senate power to authorize relations with Indigenous Nations

Section 3 of the Fifth Constitution is hereby amended;

The Senate shall have the power, except where limited elsewhere by this Constitution,
to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to distribute the revenue thus collected;
to regulate foreign trade and inter-regional commerce;
to establish and maintain relations with the Indigenous Nations of Atlasia;
to establish uniform laws of naturalization;
...

This Amendment formally enshrines Atlasian recognition of Indigenous Nations in the Constitution, affirming current relations with them to be legal, and enables the Senate to advance Indigenous rights and sovereignty.

this wording standardizes the use of "Indigenous Nations" throughout, instead of the various terms used in the first draft. it also clarifies what the senate's power is, because in the first draft it almost seems to be "to regulate ... the Native Tribes" when clearly the intent is actually to establish/maintain relations with them. this wording also shows that those relations extend to things other than just trade/commerce, which is what a more likely interpretation of the first draft's language (and its placement within that clause) would lead to.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You know what, that language is far better. I'm swapping my draft (which was basically copied and pasted from the US Constitution) for ReallySuper's text. It's very embarrassing we neglected to acknowledge Indigenous peoples when our constitutions were written, but better late than never. I want an amendment that will empower tribes, and I have some ideas that could only be implemented if relations with the First Nations are officially established. Because as far as I am concerned, any law pertaining to Native Atlasians is null due to this constitutional error.

I am asking both privately and publicly for PPT Reactionary to elevate this amendment as a priority for this Congress. And so I would like all my other bills in the queue to be delayed.

Thank you for your help on this issue, RS.

[Poirot]

The Senate is debating allowing proxy vote. In an amendment I read:

5b. ) Proxy votes shall be allowed without a designated senator at the discretion of the presiding President pro tempore or deputy President pro tempore.

I'm trying to understand this. Does it mean the PPT choose who gets a second vote because there is no designated senator ??

This proxy vote thing seems to be useful for big parties. They have many senators and maybe vote often the same way. If you are independent or the lone senator of your party, who are you going to trust to vote in your name ?

The more I think about it the more I find this a very bad idea.

[Lumine]

The end of times must be near, for I suddenly found myself in full agreement with Griffin (!) in an issue other than preserving the sacred right to duel. Seccession should be illegal, and to have it as such would have spared the game plently of shenanigans in all three regions in recent years.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Just as a reminder, i can't introduce many acts because the senator in name for instance is no longer a senator and their acts are currently not sponsored by anyone.

Only 12 senators currently sponsor acts so far. Feel free to sponsor some of those acts (or cosponsor) to clean up the queue.

I introduced 13 acts to get everything moving, if i'm not mistaken, there should be 3 more open slots. But 12 acts have been introduced so that at least every senator that sponsored something have something new on the floor right now.

The other slots are taken by last session. There is also 2 acts that have to be sent to the president yet, but thats for the main PPT to do.