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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 10, 2023, 12:06:40 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 (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SB 110-24: Yes, Virginia, There is a Federal Government Act of 2022 (Debating) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SB 110-24: Yes, Virginia, There is a Federal Government Act of 2022 (Debating)  (Read 1433 times)
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

« 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
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

« Reply #1 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
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

« Reply #2 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
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

« Reply #3 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
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

« Reply #4 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
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

« Reply #5 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
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2022, 08:44:25 PM »

Aye
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2022, 08:24:36 AM »

Aye
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P

« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2022, 01:10:30 AM »

Aye
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.039 seconds with 12 queries.