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

[Senator-elect Spark]

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

Senate Bill
to establish precedent in Federal Court

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.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Aye

[Senator-elect Spark]

A final vote is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Wait, what is the senate even voting on? The original bill, or the bill as amended by DC? Because if it's the latter, NCY issued an objection to the amendment here:

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.

yet a vote on the amendment was never taken.

Blame the previous PPT for not doing his job properly.

Blame it on Bush and blame it on Cheney. Yeah, ok, maybe.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Aye