SB 110-24: Yes, Virginia, There is a Federal Government Act of 2022 (Debating)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 23, 2023, 07:21:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  SB 110-24: Yes, Virginia, There is a Federal Government Act of 2022 (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: SB 110-24: Yes, Virginia, There is a Federal Government Act of 2022 (Debating)  (Read 937 times)
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,832
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 24, 2022, 04:55:46 PM »

Quote
Yes, Virginia, There is a Federal Government Act of 2022

Senate Bill
to establish precedent in Federal Court


Quote
1. The Federal Government recognizes the following Supreme Court decisions as valid and enforceable:

Federal power over intraregional activity
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
- TX v. White, 74 U.S. 700, (1869)
- Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978)
- Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978)
- Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979)
- Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979)
- Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983)
- Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)

Individual Rights Generally

- Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798)
- Slaughterhouse, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
- Jacobson v. MA, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
- Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)
- Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976)
- Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
- Regents of UC v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
- Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986)
- Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)
- Grutter v. Bolinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

Speech, religion, and guns
- U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
-  Railway Employees' Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956)
- One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958)
- International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961)
- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
- Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
- Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
- Memoirs v. MA, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)
- Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 US 97 (1968)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977)
- Stone v. Graham, 449 US 39 (1980)
- Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
- Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 US 578 (1987)
- Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
- U.S. v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990)
- Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1991)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
- Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (2002)

Property and Criminal
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
- Miranda v. AZ, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
- Furman v. GA, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
- Coker v. GA, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)
- Smith v. U.S., 508 U.S. 223 (1993)
- N.O.W. v. . Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994)

2. This act shall take effect immediately.


Sponsor: Devout Centrist
Status: Debating

The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,716
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2022, 08:27:43 PM »

This bill re-establishes a number of important pre-reset judicial precedents. This will help ensure that the Federal Government can enforce the law as it stands and maintain a uniform system of codes and regulations.

Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,463
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2022, 06:59:01 AM »

Why this particular list? Morrison v olson has been pretty thoroughly discredited and is about an extremely obscure office. Kokinda says its ok to ban protesting on a sidewalk near a post office. Calder v bull incorrectly permits some ex post facto laws. Texas v White is flat out contradicted by the Atlasian in game Constitution. Smith v US was one of RBGs least favorite case outcomes. Its almost like you just took a list without researching its contents. Some of these opinions would be unconstitutional to adopt as statutory law. Very much a waste of time bill.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,716
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2022, 08:51:13 AM »

An oversight on my part, I apologize. Presenting an amendment:

Quote
Quote
Yes, Virginia, There is a Federal Government Act of 2022

Senate Bill
to establish precedent in Federal Court


Quote
1. The Federal Government recognizes the following Supreme Court decisions as valid and enforceable:

Federal power over intraregional activity
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
- TX v. White, 74 U.S. 700, (1869)
- Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978)
- Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978)
- Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979)
- Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979)
- Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983)
- Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)

Individual Rights Generally

- Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798)
- Slaughterhouse, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
- Jacobson v. MA, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
- Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)
- Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976)
- Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
- Regents of UC v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

- Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986)
- Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)
- Grutter v. Bolinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

Speech, religion, and guns
- U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
-  Railway Employees' Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956)
- One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958)
- International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961)
- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
- Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
- Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
- Memoirs v. MA, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)
- Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 US 97 (1968)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977)
- Stone v. Graham, 449 US 39 (1980)
- Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
- Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 US 578 (1987)
- Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
- U.S. v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990)
- Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1991)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
- Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (2002)

Property and Criminal
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
- Miranda v. AZ, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
- Furman v. GA, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
- Coker v. GA, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)
- Smith v. U.S., 508 U.S. 223 (1993)
- N.O.W. v. . Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994)

2. This act shall take effect immediately.


I donít think this is a waste of our time, considering a certain region is attempting to ignore a number of major precedents the Court has made with regards to civil rights and interstate commerce. Seems like a major issue to me.
Logged
GM Team Member WB
weatherboy1102
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,261
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2022, 11:41:40 AM »

I support this.

24 hours for objections to the amendment.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2022, 06:53:24 AM »

Objecting. I would like to know why roe and regents are being excluded.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,716
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2022, 01:54:39 PM »
« Edited: August 27, 2022, 04:09:44 PM by Devout Centrist »

Restructuring my amendment:

Quote
Yes, Virginia, There is a Federal Government Act of 2022

Senate Bill
to establish precedent in Federal Court


Quote
1. The Federal Government recognizes the following Supreme Court decisions as valid and enforceable:

Federal power over intraregional activity
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
- TX v. White, 74 U.S. 700, (1869)
- Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978)
- Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978)
- Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979)
- Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979)
- Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983)
- Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)

Individual Rights Generally

- Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798)
- Slaughterhouse, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
- Jacobson v. MA, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
- Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)
- Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976)
- Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
- Regents of UC v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
- Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986)
- Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)
- Grutter v. Bolinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

Speech, religion, and guns
- U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
-  Railway Employees' Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U.S. 225 (1956)
- One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958)
- International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961)
- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
- Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
- Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
- Memoirs v. MA, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)
- Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 US 97 (1968)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977)
- Stone v. Graham, 449 US 39 (1980)
- Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
- Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 US 578 (1987)
- Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
- U.S. v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990)
- Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1991)
- Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
- Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (2002)

Property and Criminal
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
- Miranda v. AZ, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
- Furman v. GA, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)
- Coker v. GA, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)
- Smith v. U.S., 508 U.S. 223 (1993)
- N.O.W. v. . Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994)

2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,565
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2022, 05:03:27 PM »

The same people who were complicit or adjacent to efforts to burn down the system in the name of the age old "it's just a game" justification, cannot tolerate for game play purposes a region taking a different path on policy.

It was the same situation back in 2013/2014. The same people who wanted the burn down the regional system because "its just a game", couldn't accept the Mideast taking a different approach on abortion.

"It's just a game, provided you agree with me".

Abortion should be a regional issue, this was the general consensus after the Fourth Constitution.

I object to the revised amendment.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,716
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2022, 05:28:09 PM »

It was the same situation back in 2013/2014. The same people who wanted the burn down the regional system because "its just a game", couldn't accept the Mideast taking a different approach on abortion.
How is this materially different from the current compromise on abortion that exists in game? I don't mind removing Roe v Wade from the bill, but it would be nice not to have people accuse me of trying to destroy the game itself every time there's a disagreement like this.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,565
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2022, 05:31:28 PM »

It was the same situation back in 2013/2014. The same people who wanted the burn down the regional system because "its just a game", couldn't accept the Mideast taking a different approach on abortion.
How is this materially different from the current compromise on abortion that exists? I don't mind removing Roe v Wade from the bill, but it would be nice not to have people accuse me of trying to destroy the game itself every time there's a disagreement like this.

I didn't say "destroy the game" anywhere in my post.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,716
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2022, 04:55:57 PM »

My mistake, I apologize for misreading your post.

My goal here isn't to crack down on the regions for having different policies on abortion or to make the game less fun for people at the regional level. With this bill, my hope is to restore the modern legal understanding of interstate commerce and to prevent regions from actively nullifying Federal law.
Logged
Just Passion Through
Scott
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,569
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2022, 07:38:47 PM »

My mistake, I apologize for misreading your post.

My goal here isn't to crack down on the regions for having different policies on abortion or to make the game less fun for people at the regional level. With this bill, my hope is to restore the modern legal understanding of interstate commerce and to prevent regions from actively nullifying Federal law.

So effectively this ends the "Truman Doctrine?"
Logged
Devout Centrist
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,716
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2022, 08:30:30 PM »

My mistake, I apologize for misreading your post.

My goal here isn't to crack down on the regions for having different policies on abortion or to make the game less fun for people at the regional level. With this bill, my hope is to restore the modern legal understanding of interstate commerce and to prevent regions from actively nullifying Federal law.

So effectively this ends the "Truman Doctrine?"
I don't think this bill goes that far; rather, this is meant to protect things like existing Federal environmental policy from being picked apart at the regional level.
Logged
WD
Western Democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,511
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2022, 08:29:54 PM »

Opening a final vote in 24 hours
Logged
WD
Western Democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,511
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 06, 2022, 08:31:53 PM »

A final vote is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.
Logged
rpryor03
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,825
Bahamas


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 06, 2022, 08:34:18 PM »

Aye
Logged
WD
Western Democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,511
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2022, 08:37:29 PM »

Aye
Logged
FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦
AverageFoodEnthusiast
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,190
Virgin Islands, U.S.


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 06, 2022, 08:40:55 PM »

Aye
Logged
Devout Centrist
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,716
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2022, 08:44:25 PM »

Aye
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,392
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2022, 08:56:17 PM »

Aye
Logged
KoopaDaQuick
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,025
Anguilla


Political Matrix
E: -8.50, S: -5.74


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2022, 08:58:05 PM »

aye
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,251


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2022, 09:08:56 PM »

Aye
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2022, 09:23:33 PM »

Aye
Logged
GM Team Member WB
weatherboy1102
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,261
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2022, 09:24:06 PM »

Aye
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 06, 2022, 09:43:33 PM »

Aye.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 12 queries.