Department of Housing and Urban Development Reduction Bill

[CheeseWhiz]

Ebowed, how come you vetoed the bill?  Just wondered if there was anything specific I could fix.

[Ebowed]

It is my opinion that this bill was passed through the Senate for all of the wrong reasons.  These amendments were made so that something from the HUD could be cut, but the bill wouldn't be as drastic as the original version.  I thought this was unnecessary, because there is no reason that we should have to cut the HUD's budget just because someone proposed a bill to abolish it.  I only support these sorts of measures if they cut something that truly should be cut, such as the Minority Business Development Agency, which had to go for obvious reasons.

Indeed, cutting public housing is not the first thing that should be done in times of a deficit.  There are certainly other things that could be done.

[CheeseWhiz]

Ebowed, as Ernest and Bono have already said, that program has been ruled unconstitutional, and, I could be wrong, but doesn't that mean we're actually paying people to do nothing?  If that is the case, then this is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be cut first.

[jokerman]

A ray of sanity comes out of this administration.  Thank you, Ebowed.

[Ebowed]

Ebowed, as Ernest and Bono have already said, that program has been ruled unconstitutional, and, I could be wrong, but doesn't that mean we're actually paying people to do nothing?  If that is the case, then this is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be cut first.

This bill not only abolishes Indian Housing but Public Housing - "The Office of Public and Indian Housing."

Additionally, I have re-read both Bono vs. Atlasia decisions and can find no inkling relating to Indian affairs.  The only mention I can find of it being ruled unconstitutional is that the GM said so when he was preparing budget figures for the Senate in January.

[Colin]

Mr. Vice President,
Noting that the decision has been made and that you have officially vetoed this bill I would like to object to your actions in a public manner. Whilst if this program was still operational and currently using the funds provided to it by the federal government I could see a reason why such a measure such as a veto could be taken.

But since the Supreme Court ruled in Bono v. Atlasia that the main cut in this bill, the Office of Public and Indian Housing, is unconstitional and thus not using the funds appropriated to it by this legislature which to me makes your veto seem rather odd.

Secondly I would like to ask an open question to all those who voted in the negation of this proposal. Would you support a bill such as this if it only did away with the Office of Public and Indian Housing which was declared unconstitutional in Bono v. Atlasia or would you still be opposed?

I would also like to protest the actions of PPT MasterJedi. According to the OSPR Article V Section 3 the sponsor of this bill has 72 hours to decide whether he wants the Senate to vote again on overidding the Presidents veto. Your actions in unanimously declaring that their shall not be a veto overide vote is illegal according to the OSPR. The final decision rests in the current sponsor of the bill, ie Senator CheeseWhiz, and he has to publically state whether or not he wants their to be a veto overide vote. I would hope that the PPT in any future instance of such a situation occuring would use his powers in the way that the OSPR subscribes.

[MasterJedi]

I would also like to protest the actions of PPT MasterJedi. According to the OSPR Article V Section 3 the sponsor of this bill has 72 hours to decide whether he wants the Senate to vote again on overidding the Presidents veto. Your actions in unanimously declaring that their shall not be a veto overide vote is illegal according to the OSPR. The final decision rests in the current sponsor of the bill, ie Senator CheeseWhiz, and he has to publically state whether or not he wants their to be a veto overide vote. I would hope that the PPT in any future instance of such a situation occuring would use his powers in the way that the OSPR subscribes.

I just said that the bill doesn't have enough votes for a veto override so I won't go for it. I didn't say the sponsor can't.

[CheeseWhiz]

A ray of sanity comes out of this administration.  Thank you, Ebowed.

I know you probably want to keep the Office of Public and Indian Housing and all, but I believe Ernest was saying that we really didn't have a program to keep after Bono vs. Atlasia II.  Because of the courts rulings, the program can’t do anything, so we are paying them not to do absolutely anything.

Yes, I would like to have an veto override vote.

[Colin]

I would also like to protest the actions of PPT MasterJedi. According to the OSPR Article V Section 3 the sponsor of this bill has 72 hours to decide whether he wants the Senate to vote again on overidding the Presidents veto. Your actions in unanimously declaring that their shall not be a veto overide vote is illegal according to the OSPR. The final decision rests in the current sponsor of the bill, ie Senator CheeseWhiz, and he has to publically state whether or not he wants their to be a veto overide vote. I would hope that the PPT in any future instance of such a situation occuring would use his powers in the way that the OSPR subscribes.

I just said that the bill doesn't have enough votes for a veto override so I won't go for it. I didn't say the sponsor can't.

Well you can't open up the vote without the consent of the sponsor in the first place so that seems to make your statement rather superfluous. I thought that by what you said you meant that you wouldn't bring a veto overide vote to the floor. I'm sorry if I was mistaken.

[Colin]

Ebowed, as Ernest and Bono have already said, that program has been ruled unconstitutional, and, I could be wrong, but doesn't that mean we're actually paying people to do nothing?  If that is the case, then this is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be cut first.

Additionally, I have re-read both Bono vs. Atlasia decisions and can find no inkling relating to Indian affairs.  The only mention I can find of it being ruled unconstitutional is that the GM said so when he was preparing budget figures for the Senate in January.

This is taken from the text of the decision in the case of Bono v. Atlasia II available on the AtlasWiki; emphasis mine:

VII.  Chapter 34 of title 42 of the US code
There remain only three portions of this chapter that have not been repealed, Part C of subchapter I, and subchapters VIII, and X.

Subchapter I Part C - Federal Work-Study Programs

A clear usage of the Senate's power under Article I Section 5 Clause 15.

Subchapter VIII - Native American Programs

Programs that provide benefits to people based solely on their
ethnicity are generally unconstitutional as they deny people equal treatment under the law.

Subchapter X - Legal Services Corporation

Subchapter X of chapter 34 employs a means test based of income level in order to determine eligibility of persons to gain assistance under it.  In keeping with the precedent of the first Bono v. Atlasia case, a program employing such tests is inherently unconstutional.  This court does not rule at this time on the constitutionality of this program absent of such test.

That overall is the only mentioning of Native Americans in Bono v. Atlasia II though if it was the GMs decision that it was made unconstitutional then I would believe it is final. Also since Bono v. Atlasia and Bono v. Atlasia II both made any program that used a test as a basis for application unconstitutional which could be constued to also mean the Office of Public and Indian Housing.

[Ebowed]

OK, I found the relevant section of Bono v. Atlasia II:

   Subchapter VIII - Native American Programs
Programs that provide benefits to people based solely on their
ethnicity are generally unconstitutional as they deny people equal treatment under the law.

   Subchapter X - Legal Services Corporation
Subchapter X of chapter 34 employs a means test based of income level in order to determine eligibility of persons to gain assistance under it.  In keeping with the precedent of the first Bono v. Atlasia case, a program employing such tests is inherently unconstutional.  This court does not rule at this time on the constitutionality of this program absent of such test.

If we are to bow to the every whim and demand of the Supreme Court, this essentially means that either all welfare programs are unconstitutional, or the rich can apply for welfare.  So go ahead and pursue your veto override, if you really want, but you may as well keep in mind that we already approved a cut/abolition of this Office when we passed the last Budget.

I should add that the wording in that section of the ruling is highly vague, does anyone have a list of what exactly was ruled unconstitutional?

[MasterJedi]

Yes, I would like to have an veto override vote.

I hereby open up the vote on the Veto override for this bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Colin]

Aye

[Jake]

Nay for the reasons given previously.

[Ebowed]

Nay for the reasons given previously.

Thank you.  I urge the Senate not to vote in favor of this override.

[CheeseWhiz]

Aye

So go ahead and pursue your veto override, if you really want, but you may as well keep in mind that we already approved a cut/abolition of this Office when we passed the last Budget.

So, wait, are you saying that the programs gonna get cut soon whatever happens to this bill?

[The Duke]

OK, I found the relevant section of Bono v. Atlasia II:

   Subchapter VIII - Native American Programs
Programs that provide benefits to people based solely on their
ethnicity are generally unconstitutional as they deny people equal treatment under the law.

   Subchapter X - Legal Services Corporation
Subchapter X of chapter 34 employs a means test based of income level in order to determine eligibility of persons to gain assistance under it.  In keeping with the precedent of the first Bono v. Atlasia case, a program employing such tests is inherently unconstutional.  This court does not rule at this time on the constitutionality of this program absent of such test.

If we are to bow to the every whim and demand of the Supreme Court, this essentially means that either all welfare programs are unconstitutional, or the rich can apply for welfare.  So go ahead and pursue your veto override, if you really want, but you may as well keep in mind that we already approved a cut/abolition of this Office when we passed the last Budget.

The Bono decision pertains only to the actual program in question and no justice has ever said that all social welfare is now unconstitutional.  There are also specific sections of the Constitution authorizing things like Social Secrity and Medicare.

And it is somewhat disturbing to hear the Acting President suggest we had ought not listen to the Supreme Court unless we agree with them.  You didn't say exactly that, but it is a logical inferrence from your comments.

[Bono]

Aye

[Colin]

OK, I found the relevant section of Bono v. Atlasia II:

   Subchapter VIII - Native American Programs
Programs that provide benefits to people based solely on their
ethnicity are generally unconstitutional as they deny people equal treatment under the law.

   Subchapter X - Legal Services Corporation
Subchapter X of chapter 34 employs a means test based of income level in order to determine eligibility of persons to gain assistance under it.  In keeping with the precedent of the first Bono v. Atlasia case, a program employing such tests is inherently unconstutional.  This court does not rule at this time on the constitutionality of this program absent of such test.

I should add that the wording in that section of the ruling is highly vague, does anyone have a list of what exactly was ruled unconstitutional?

That section is highly vague but a section further up in the ruling, as well as the precedent set in Bono v. Atlasia I, declared any program that uses a test as a basis for application is unconstitutional.

The section that I have found is concerning Chapter 8 of title 42 of the US code. The actual text of the decision, emphesis my own:

V.  Chapter 8 of title 42 of the US code
Subchapter II of chapter 8 has already been repealed, leaving subchapters I, II-A, II-B, III, and some sections prior to subchapter I that are not part of any subchapter.

The sections of chapter 8 prior to subchapter I and section 1439 of subchapter III of chapter 8 deliniate various procedural aspects of administrating the law and are in of themselves constitutional under Article I Section 5 Clause 28.

The programs administered under section 1440 of subchapter III of chapter 8 and subchapters I, II-A and II-B of chapter 8 employ a means test based of income level in order to determine eligibility of persons to gain assistance under it.  In keeping with the precedent of the first Bono v. Atlasia case, programs employing such tests are inherently unconstutional.  This court does not rule at this time on the constitutionality of such programs absent of such test.

Granted I probably would not have decided that such test based welfare programs were unconstitutional but we must respect the court's decision or else the independence and power of the judiciary might be called into question. If you, Ebowed, feel that this ruling was unfair and distorted the meaning of the constitution then I, by all means, would suggest that you bring up a new case before the Court once it is completely filled that might overturn some of the rulings in Bono v. Atlasia II.

[Bono]

OK, I found the relevant section of Bono v. Atlasia II:

   Subchapter VIII - Native American Programs
Programs that provide benefits to people based solely on their
ethnicity are generally unconstitutional as they deny people equal treatment under the law.

   Subchapter X - Legal Services Corporation
Subchapter X of chapter 34 employs a means test based of income level in order to determine eligibility of persons to gain assistance under it.  In keeping with the precedent of the first Bono v. Atlasia case, a program employing such tests is inherently unconstutional.  This court does not rule at this time on the constitutionality of this program absent of such test.

If we are to bow to the every whim and demand of the Supreme Court, this essentially means that either all welfare programs are unconstitutional, or the rich can apply for welfare.  So go ahead and pursue your veto override, if you really want, but you may as well keep in mind that we already approved a cut/abolition of this Office when we passed the last Budget.

The Bono decision pertains only to the actual program in question and no justice has ever said that all social welfare is now unconstitutional.  There are also specific sections of the Constitution authorizing things like Social Secrity and Medicare.

And it is somewhat disturbing to hear the Acting President suggest we had ought not listen to the Supreme Court unless we agree with them.  You didn't say exactly that, but it is a logical inferrence from your comments.

Social security and medicaid were exempted from both decisions, and that extrapolation of yours that an authorization for annuities and pensions for health, old age and unemployment, or whatever the constituion puts it as, are an authorization for all kinds of social spending, ahs been rebuked here many times before. Each time you manage to come back with it. Can it already.

[Ebowed]

The Bono decision pertains only to the actual program in question and no justice has ever said that all social welfare is now unconstitutional.  There are also specific sections of the Constitution authorizing things like Social Secrity and Medicare.

Indeed, the wording of the decision pertaining to that act is rather vague, but you'll note that the second part I quoted essentially allows the rich to apply for welfare.  This much was admitted when the ruling was made, either way.

The office has already been cut, and this bill is horribly written and was passed only so that a cut could be rushed through.  What exactly is the point of this bill?  There is none.  I vetoed it both because of practical concerns and to take a principled stand against the actions of this Senate.

[CheeseWhiz]

The office has already been cut,

Okay, why didn't you tell us this before we passed the bill?  I thought it's operations had been cut, but I knew nothing about the actual program being cut.

and this bill is horribly written

Please explain.

and was passed only so that a cut could be rushed through.

I don't think so.  All the Senators discussed it for about 6 pages and most could agree that this could be cut.  If we can agree that something can or, better yet, needs to be cut, we should jump at the opportunity.

[Ebowed]

The office has already been cut,

Okay, why didn't you tell us this before we passed the bill?  I thought it's operations had been cut, but I knew nothing about the actual program being cut.

I didn't realize that until after the bill had been passed.

and this bill is horribly written

Please explain.

It tries to cut/abolish two things at the same time in an unorganized manner solely for the sake of getting a cut passed.  It looks like it was written on the back of an envelope; I don't really think it can be saved at all.  The bill was never a good idea to begin with.

and was passed only so that a cut could be rushed through.

I don't think so.  All the Senators discussed it for about 6 pages and most could agree that this could be cut.  If we can agree that something can or, better yet, needs to be cut, we should jump at the opportunity.

The only reason that discussion occured was because someone introduced a bill that would abolish the entire Department in the first place.  So, the Senate felt the need to at least cut something because the original bill was too extreme.  As I said, I feel that this was done for the wrong reasons.

[The Duke]

Social security and medicaid were exempted from both decisions, and that extrapolation of yours that an authorization for annuities and pensions for health, old age and unemployment, or whatever the constituion puts it as, are an authorization for all kinds of social spending, ahs been rebuked here many times before. Each time you manage to come back with it. Can it already.

I've never said that that section allows "all kinds of social spending".  I think it allows exactly what it says it allows.  It allows annuities to the elderly, which is exactly what social security is.  its as if the language was written with Social Security in mind.

And before you continue your insults at me, you do realize I essentially support the bill in question to cut Indian Housing?  I'm an ally of yours on this one, in case you hadn't noticed.

[Bono]

Social security and medicaid were exempted from both decisions, and that extrapolation of yours that an authorization for annuities and pensions for health, old age and unemployment, or whatever the constituion puts it as, are an authorization for all kinds of social spending, ahs been rebuked here many times before. Each time you manage to come back with it. Can it already.

I've never said that that section allows "all kinds of social spending".  I think it allows exactly what it says it allows.  It allows annuities to the elderly, which is exactly what social security is.  its as if the language was written with Social Security in mind.

And before you continue your insults at me, you do realize I essentially support the bill in question to cut Indian Housing?  I'm an ally of yours on this one, in case you hadn't noticed.

You did say it,it's in one of the Bono vs Atlasia threads, but I can't be bothered to look up now, and when I come back in the morning you'll probably will have it deleted.

It's good to see you changed your mind though, but you did used that and social welafre on the same train of thought. I don't think I insulted you, but sorry, whatever.