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

[Devout Centrist]

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.

[Devout Centrist]

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

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.

I don’t 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.

[Devout Centrist]

Restructuring my amendment:

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.

[Devout Centrist]

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.

[Devout Centrist]

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.

[Devout Centrist]

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.

[Devout Centrist]

Aye

[Devout Centrist]

Aye

[Devout Centrist]

Aye