Mideast Assembly Thread

[Devilman88]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does that sound?

[Franzl]

to Section 2: I think you need to add that missed votes that are announced prior to any absence are excused and don't count towards the 3 vote rule.

to Section 3: I'd add 72 hours maximum. There are many cases in which all members vote quickly...so it shouldn't be necessary for it to last 3 days regardless.

[Devilman88]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about now?

[Franzl]

It's written to a point where it makes sense. That's good. I'm not sure personally where I stand on the content.....seems kind of harsh to me. After all, we are talking about people that were elected. Add to that the fact that we have trouble finding members for the Assembly even without this kind of rule.

Feel free to have it discussed in the Assembly, though. That's your job, and it's great to see you doing it.

Just an alternative suggestion, however, in the event that your proposal does not gain sufficient support in the Assembly: You could propose that in the event that a member misses 3 consecutive votes that a recall vote is held to allow the citizens of the Mideast to decide whether the assemblyman in question deserves being removed from office. Just a though.

[Purple State]

Just an alternative suggestion, however, in the event that your proposal does not gain sufficient support in the Assembly: You could propose that in the event that a member misses 3 consecutive votes that a recall vote is held to allow the citizens of the Mideast to decide whether the assemblyman in question deserves being removed from office. Just a though.

Just as a note, that may require a constitutional amendment. I am not stating where I come down on any of this for now, but I'll help serve as a record of fact type of thing.

[Devilman88]

We could always edit it to say recall election, but I will wait to see what the other Assembly members think.

[Peter]

I think any proposal which would cause the removal of an Assembly member will need to be a Constitutional Amendment.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

I am absolutely opposed to removing a person from office for such an infraction, but I have no problem with the original bill.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Just to weigh in on the Constitutionality of all of this.  It would require an amendment if you wanted an automatic recall; however, if you simply remove the person from office, you could argue that it falls under the "judge the qualifications" clause of the powers of the Assembly.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Just to weigh in on the Constitutionality of all of this.  It would require an amendment if you wanted an automatic recall; however, if you simply remove the person from office, you could argue that it falls under the "judge the qualifications" clause of the powers of the Assembly.

I still think it goes against the spirit of the Constitution and the spirit of the position. We, as assemblymembers, will get around to voting, but setting a time limit constrains the process.

[Devilman88]

We can table this and move on to something else you guys want to.

[Purple State]

I think the idea is worth looking at and could be developed, with some added nuance, to a workable piece; however, I would recommend that be done after more substantive legislation is passed.

I would recommend implementation of a regional workers' rights policy. That is something I am currently working on developing for the Senate.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

I think the idea is worth looking at and could be developed, with some added nuance, to a workable piece; however, I would recommend that be done after more substantive legislation is passed.

I would recommend implementation of a regional workers' rights policy. That is something I am currently working on developing for the Senate.

Well, if it passes in the Senate, we would obviously not need to pass it here. Maybe we should wait for that bill to pass or fail in Senate, and then work on it here if it fails. There is no need to pass a bill regionally that the national government passes.
I suggest we begin work on a bill that bans abortion in the Mideast.

[Devilman88]

Persepolis write something up.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Mideast Abortion Law

1. All forms of abortion are banned in the Mideast.
     i. Abortion is defined as the premature termination of a pregnancy not due to a risk that could cause serious damage to the mother or the fetus.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Mideast Abortion Law

1. All forms of abortion are banned in the Mideast.
     i. Abortion is defined as the premature termination of a pregnancy not due to a risk that could cause serious damage to the mother or the fetus.

Just a note - you should probably change that to have some sort of medical terminology, otherwise an accidental termination (miscarriage) would be illegal.

Also, what would the punishment for abortion be?

EDIT: Also, Roe v. Wade would have to be overturned by the court for this to be valid (unless there's been a more recent case in Atlasia).

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Mideast Abortion Law

1. All forms of abortion are banned in the Mideast.
     i. Abortion is defined as the premature termination of a pregnancy not due to a risk that could cause serious damage to the mother or the fetus.

Just a note - you should probably change that to have some sort of medical terminology, otherwise an accidental termination (miscarriage) would be illegal.

Also, what would the punishment for abortion be?

Both things you just mentioned are tings that crossed my mind when writing it. I thought I could get some help on those parts because I have no idea what a sufficient punishment would be for abortion.

Rewritten:
 1. All forms of abortion are banned in the Mideast.
     i. Abortion is defined as the premature and intentional termination of a pregnancy not due to a risk that could cause serious damage to the mother or the fetus.
2. The punisment for committing said crime would be ()

[Purple State]

As a citizen of the Mideast, I cannot support the measure banning abortion currently on the table. It is far too broad and sweeping, completely abolishing a woman's right to choose.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

As a citizen of the Mideast, I cannot support the measure banning abortion currently on the table. It is far too broad and sweeping, completely abolishing a woman's right to choose.

There are certain choices people cannot have. We do not have the right to choose whether or not we kill someone. Abortion is akin to that. Women should not have the right to take someone's life.

[Purple State]

As a citizen of the Mideast, I cannot support the measure banning abortion currently on the table. It is far too broad and sweeping, completely abolishing a woman's right to choose.

There are certain choices people cannot have. We do not have the right to choose whether or not we kill someone. Abortion is akin to that. Women should not have the right to take someone's life.

That is only if you believe life begins at conception. The potential for life is not life and is only as valuable as the one with the power over that potential ascribes to it.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

As a citizen of the Mideast, I cannot support the measure banning abortion currently on the table. It is far too broad and sweeping, completely abolishing a woman's right to choose.

There are certain choices people cannot have. We do not have the right to choose whether or not we kill someone. Abortion is akin to that. Women should not have the right to take someone's life.

That is only if you believe life begins at conception. The potential for life is not life and is only as valuable as the one with the power over that potential ascribes to it.

Women give birth, but are not divine. They should not have the choice of killing a defenseless human being, whether they feel a sense that they own the individual or not. The fetus has the right to survive, and, once conceived, should not have that right taken away from itself.

[Purple State]

As a citizen of the Mideast, I cannot support the measure banning abortion currently on the table. It is far too broad and sweeping, completely abolishing a woman's right to choose.

There are certain choices people cannot have. We do not have the right to choose whether or not we kill someone. Abortion is akin to that. Women should not have the right to take someone's life.

That is only if you believe life begins at conception. The potential for life is not life and is only as valuable as the one with the power over that potential ascribes to it.

Women give birth, but are not divine. They should not have the choice of killing a defenseless human being, whether they feel a sense that they own the individual or not. The fetus has the right to survive, and, once conceived, should not have that right taken away from itself.

I would argue you are mischaracterizing the potential for life (the fetus) for actual life (a baby). It is not a woman's right to take life, but a woman may control her own power over the potential for life. A woman is, in fact, divine insofar as it pertains to her power of creation.

[Hash]

In the sad eventuality that this crap passes, I plan to push for a public referendum.

[afleitch]

In the sad eventuality that this crap passes, I plan to push for a public referendum.

Supported.

Persepolis, personal belief can be respected, but that is all it is. It cannot, in this form be the basis for public law. Any moves to ban abortion will be met with severe opposition. Your position will also be met with severe opposition and you're just in the door...

[HappyWarrior]

I am personally a pro-lifer but this legislation is too big.  To do this would needlessly persecute women, alot of times for things that simply should not be a crime.