College Recruitment for the Military Protection Bill

[Gabu]

And don't respond please, I've gotten enough or your arrogance and in your face attitude tonight.

Private citizens have the right to post here, and comments like Virginian87's that I and Ilikeverin are "joke posters" are at least as bad as anything he's said thus far.

[Colin]

Current Veto Override Tally (Keystone Phil, Yates and EarlAW left to vote)

5 Aye (MasterJedi, WMS, Dave Hawk, Virginian87, Bacon King)
2 Nay (Gabu, Ilikeverin)

It'll depend on Yates's respect for the constituion.  KeystonePhil is an easy "aye" and Earl will be an "abstain."

Stop trying to guild trip the Senator with your beliefs. And don't respond please, I've gotten enough or your arrogance and in your face attitude tonight.

He has just as much right as you do to post here, Senator, as you do. He can act in any attitude or tone he wants as long as it isn't offensive to the other Senators.

Personally he is right about the constitutional issues of this bill. If the remaining Senators do believe in actually obeying the Constitution, or unless one of the supporters of this bill gives me evidence that these state universities are actually funded by the federal government, then I must implore them to vote to vote down unconstitutional law.

[Democratic Hawk]

And don't respond please, I've gotten enough or your arrogance and in your face attitude tonight.

Private citizens have the right to post here, and comments like Virginian87's that I and Ilikeverin are "joke posters" are at least as bad as anything he's said thus far.

Steady on. I don't recall the Senator referring to any one other than jerusalemscar as a "joke poster". That said, he, as you say is a private citizen who is entitled to post his opinion and I, for one, welcome such opinion but I suspect his opposition to this Bill is not so much on constitutional grounds but more a case of anti-military activism on his part, which I disagree vehemenently with

In this long and heated debate, I have argued that publically-funded colleges should allow the military to recruit on their campuses; because for them to refuse would be tantamount to political activism

As to whether this Bill were it to become Law is unconstitutional or not is something for the Supreme Court - not the Senate - to determine. And I don't want to see any political activism there either

I support this Bill because it's in the national interest and you should all know me well enough by now that that as far as I'm concerned is sacrosanct

'Hawk'

[Colin]

As to whether this Bill were it to become Law is unconstitutional or not is something for the Supreme Court - not the Senate - to determine. And I don't want to see any political activism there either

But it is sir. The Senate should try and adhere to the Constitution in doing its business. The Judiciary is only here as a fail safe to review laws that the Senate has passed but which their have been challenges to. The Senate should make it their objective to ensure that the legislation coming out of their chambers is in accordance with the laws and statutes of the nation. The Judiciary only decides when citizens react to a piece of legislation in the form of a lawsuit. The Senate must act to fulfil only those roles given to it by the Constitution without supervision from the Judiciary.

[jerusalemcar5]

To Senator Master Jedi:  I am sorry if I have offended you, but I was merely stating my point.  You have repeatedly asked me to leave the Senate when I argue against bills you sponsor when it is my right and duty as an Atlasian citizen to state my position on the bills and laws in this republic.  I will not leave Senator, unless you can show me something that truly offends the Senate.

To Senator Dave Hawk:  I do not deny that I support the right of a university to make decisions that will benefit the school.  But this is not "anti-military activism."  I'm not trying to cut soldiers' pay or disband the whole army, I simply believe that a massive army is not necessary for Atlasia.  I wouldn't march through the streets tring to damage our armed forces, but that is an opinion of mine.  I also say that I wholeheartedly would accept, obviously not without a fight, the passage of a bill such as this in regional assemblies as stated in the Constitution.  I have more than one reason to be against this bill, and the constitutional one is just as great if not greater than the others.  Also, please don't call my beliefs "anti-military activism" if you aren't willing to call yours "pro-military activism."  You are actively and diligently trying to force the military on universities.  I don't believe that is necessarily activism, but if I'm an activist, then you are sir. 

I'd like to end this with a quote from yourself.

I, Dave Hawk, do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of Senator for District Four and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave.

'Hawk'

I don't see the "I will let the Supreme Court deal with the Constituion while I ignore it" phrase.  It is your duty as you swore as a Senator to be sure that anything you pass is constitutional, sir.

[Gabu]

In this long and heated debate, I have argued that publically-funded colleges should allow the military to recruit on their campuses; because for them to refuse would be tantamount to political activism

But there are different types of public funds.  As far as I know, universities fall within the jurisdiction of the regions, and as such, their regulation strikes me as a regional matter.  Would you have the federal government legislate on zoning on behalf of the military?

See, this is one thing that I just don't get.  Time and time again I've seen politicians act as if there are two groups: the military and everything else, in that anything that benefits the military is sacrosanct.  People who have strongly argued in favor of regional rights are now, all of a sudden, in favor of the federal government regulating something that belongs to the regions, and the only difference that I can see is that, in this case, the beneficiary of the regulation is the military.  It seems to me that, as much as a strong military is a good thing, one should not immediately abandon all of one's principles whenever the welfare of the military is under consideration.

It seems to me, as well, that forcing military recruiters onto university grounds is at least as much political activism as universities refusing to host them.

[Democratic Hawk]

Basically, what I'd like to know, beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt, is whether or not education is a constitutionally-mandated function of the Senate or the Regions?

Article I Section 5: Powers of the Senate

The Senate shall have the power save where limited by other provisions in the Constitution:

15) To promote the distribution of Knowledge or Science and useful Arts, by assisting and fostering persons seeking to be educated, to provide education , or to produce educational materials

Does that not define the provision of education as being a responsiblity/power of the federal government?  Does that not in effect deem the federal government responsible for funding education?

22) To raise and support armed forces and to make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces of the Republic of Atlasia

Does that not give the federal government the power/responsibility to allow the military to recruit without hinderence?

Basically, it would seem that the Senate does have the responsibility/power to provide for education and to raise and support armed forces - both of which clearly involve public funding, so where does regional government fit in exactly as far as education is concerned?

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I'd like to end this with a quote from yourself.

I, Dave Hawk, do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of Senator for District Four and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave.

'Hawk'

I don't see the "I will let the Supreme Court deal with the Constituion while I ignore it" phrase.  It is your duty as you swore as a Senator to be sure that anything you pass is constitutional, sir.

For the recrod, I have asked for clarification as to where regional government fits in with regards to the provision of education because the only reference to education, which I can locate in the Consitution, is Section 5: Powers of the Senate Clause 15

Furthermore, I'm well aware of my obligations but I'm no legal expert. My support for this Bill boils down my conviction that it is within reason and the right thing to do. Nor can I think of any reason why a publically-funded university should not allow military recruiters on its campuses because matters pertaining to the raising and support of the armed forces are no concern of theirs. That is the Senate's responsibility

'Hawk'

[ilikeverin]

I think we're all going a little bit overboard here...

Everyone take a deep breath.

Iiiiiin... ouuuuut...

Again.

Iiiiiin... ouuuuut....

Don't you feel so much better now?

[Colin]

Basically, what I'd like to know, beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt, is whether or not education is a constitutionally-mandated function of the Senate or the Regions?

Article I Section 5: Powers of the Senate

The Senate shall have the power save where limited by other provisions in the Constitution:

15) To promote the distribution of Knowledge or Science and useful Arts, by assisting and fostering persons seeking to be educated, to provide education , or to produce educational materials

Does that not define the provision of education as being a responsiblity/power of the federal government?  Does that not in effect deem the federal government responsible for funding education?

Yes they federal government can fund education programs and yes it can set up universities of its own. However these universities in question are paid and provisioned by the regional governments. As such they are only beholden to the authority of the regional governors. While if the government was giving funding to these institutions they have the right to defund these aforementioned institutions they do not have the right to ascribe policy to these colleges.

While the federal government may provide for education by funding institutions, setting up school systems or managing the administration of a public school system it does not have constitutional authority to dictate the actions of publically funded schools any other way then by cutting off funding.

As I have continually stated there would be nothing constitutionally wrong with this bill if it stated that the federal government would defund such institutions however by expressly prohibiting the actions of regionally controlled public universities this becomes unconstitutional.

[jerusalemcar5]

I have officially been confused by the Constitution.  I don't understand who has authority where, and when this authority is checked and by whom, and I believe some sections to conflict.  (Thank goodness we are having a convention, we all need to clear this up).

Clause 15 either hinders or does not help your case.  Forcing the military on universities does not provide education and could possibly hinder it, but that is open to interpretation.  It does not give the Senate control over education, merely gives it the power to help.

For clause 22 I'm going to have to question the wording.  What does the word "support" mean?  How loosely is that word used, because that could allow the Senate to do A LOT of things for the military if interpreted one way.  I don't know what the intention of "support" was so I cannot fully respond.

Finally, I have no idea how much impact the federal governemnt has on these universities.  They are all regionally run (the only public national universities are military academies) and the Atlasian budget gives no details into how the Education Subdepartment spends its money. It only receives 56 billion dollars however which implies minimal funding per university.  

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes they federal government can fund education programs and yes it can set up universities of its own. However these universities in question are paid and provisioned by the regional governments. As such they are only beholden to the authority of the regional governors. While if the government was giving funding to these institutions they have the right to defund these aforementioned institutions they do not have the right to ascribe policy to these colleges.

While the federal government may provide for education by funding institutions, setting up school systems or managing the administration of a public school system it does not have constitutional authority to dictate the actions of publically funded schools any other way then by cutting off funding.

As I have continually stated there would be nothing constitutionally wrong with this bill if it stated that the federal government would defund such institutions however by expressly prohibiting the actions of regionally controlled public universities this becomes unconstitutional.

All I'll say is that being pro-public education as I am and, indeed, the Christian Democratic Party is, I'd be loathe to do that but if needs must then such activism must be kicked into touch; the sad thing is this Bill would be the painless solution , which is, partly, why my vote stands

'Hawk'

[Gabu]

15) To promote the distribution of Knowledge or Science and useful Arts, by assisting and fostering persons seeking to be educated, to provide education , or to produce educational materials

This does not mean that the federal government is the sole body authorized to do this.  The regions still run the universities.

22) To raise and support armed forces and to make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces of the Republic of Atlasia

Does that not give the federal government the power/responsibility to allow the military to recruit without hinderence?

If that logic held, there would be nary an action under the sun that was unconstitutional as long as you justified it as supporting the armed forces.  Abolishing the government and establishing a military dictatorship could be justified under the pretext that it gives more power to the military.  Given that the section immediately after the one containing that clause denies powers to the Senate, it seems to me that the only possible interpretation of that (if we assume that the Constitution cannot contradict itself) is that the Senate may only exercise the powers granted to it in that section if its actions are in accordance with the rest of the Constitution.

[Democratic Hawk]

At the end of the day, I see no reason why public universities should refuse the military access to recruit other than for anti-military political activism - and thus, I can't withdraw my support for this Bill

'Hawk'

[jerusalemcar5]

At the end of the day, I see no reason why public universities should refuse the military access to recruit other than for anti-military political activism - and thus, I can't withdraw my support for this Bill

'Hawk'

I have a couple possibilities.  Military recruiters are known to be fairly agressive in their techniques, at least moreso than other job recruiters.  They also tend to exploit soft points in people (i.e. poverty, the want to be valiant, etc.).  Many students attending these schools are prime targets for being recruited away from college and losing their valuable education because they tend to fit the characteristics stated above.  University leaders might want to protect students from putting themsleves in harm's way because of an exploitation.  It isn't that they hate the military, but these students often are the first in their family to attend college and they merely want to protect them.

[Hatman 🍁]

I abstain

[Keystone Phil]

Aye

[Ebowed]

At the end of the day, I see no reason why public universities should refuse the military access to recruit other than for anti-military political activism

Yeah, who wants to deal with pesky political activism?

[MasterJedi]

Current Vote Tally Left to vote- Yates

6 Aye (MasterJedi, Bacon King, Dave Hawk, Virginian87, Keystone Phil, WMS)
2 Nay (Gabu, Ilikeverin)
1 Abstain (EarlAW)

[Gabu]

This passes regardless of how Yates votes unless Earl changes his vote to nay, since 6 is 2/3 of 9.

[Ebowed]

Current Vote Tally Left to vote- Yates

6 Aye (MasterJedi, Bacon King, Dave Hawk, Virginian87, Keystone Phil, WMS)
2 Nay (Gabu, Ilikeverin)
1 Abstain (EarlAW)

We were overdue for a lawsuit anyway.

[Emsworth]

This passes regardless of how Yates votes unless Earl changes his vote to nay, since 6 is 2/3 of 9.

I thought that, according to the Senate's rules, abstentions count as nay votes in veto override situations.

[Gabu]

This passes regardless of how Yates votes unless Earl changes his vote to nay, since 6 is 2/3 of 9.

I thought that, according to the Senate's rules, abstentions count as nay votes in veto override situations.

Oh, right, that stupid rule.

Okay, waiting for Yates it is.

[WMS]

15) To promote the distribution of Knowledge or Science and useful Arts, by assisting and fostering persons seeking to be educated, to provide education , or to produce educational materials

This does not mean that the federal government is the sole body authorized to do this.  The regions still run the universities.

Serious question here: where is it written or implied that the regions run the universities? Given how important of a point this is in the debate, and given Senator Hawk's examination of the Constitution, this really needs to be backed up. I suppose the inevitable Supreme Court lawsuit might answer that, but so far I haven't seen the evidence for that point.

[Colin]

15) To promote the distribution of Knowledge or Science and useful Arts, by assisting and fostering persons seeking to be educated, to provide education , or to produce educational materials

This does not mean that the federal government is the sole body authorized to do this.  The regions still run the universities.

Serious question here: where is it written or implied that the regions run the universities? Given how important of a point this is in the debate, and given Senator Hawk's examination of the Constitution, this really needs to be backed up. I suppose the inevitable Supreme Court lawsuit might answer that, but so far I haven't seen the evidence for that point.

Its mostly a carry over from American law, IIRC since we have not specifically stated anything differently. The current system, therefore, is that the states, which would carry over to regions, run and fund the public universities. As I have said though if anyone can point out something on the contrary then there is no reason to believe that there is federal funding or control of these institutions.

All I'll say is that being pro-public education as I am and, indeed, the Christian Democratic Party is, I'd be loathe to do that but if needs must then such activism must be kicked into touch; the sad thing is this Bill would be the painless solution , which is, partly, why my vote stands

'Hawk'

Well I can pretty much assure you that defunding those institutions would cause little, if any, change in their overall coffers. These institutions are almostly entirely funded through regional budgets and by the donations and endowments of alumni. Defunding an institution such as Pennsylvania State University of federal funds would lead to little if any change in their overall budget due to the size of money they recieve from state governments, in America, through endowments and donations from alumni.