Mideast Assembly Thread

[Purple State]

There are now 2 vacancies in the Mideast Assembly.

I urge the Governor to fill these vacancies. I would simply state that I can pass bills, have them vetoed, and then override vetoes on my own at the moment

We have no definition of requirements of quorum for the Assembly? That should change.

Bear in mind we can always call a referendum on things you pass.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There are now 2 vacancies in the Mideast Assembly.

I urge the Governor to fill these vacancies. I would simply state that I can pass bills, have them vetoed, and then override vetoes on my own at the moment

I know - I'm working on that now.

[Purple State]

There are now 2 vacancies in the Mideast Assembly.

I urge the Governor to fill these vacancies. I would simply state that I can pass bills, have them vetoed, and then override vetoes on my own at the moment

I know - I'm working on that now.

We just like torturing you Inks.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I introduce some amendments to the smoking bill.

The Public Smoking Act
1. It shall be illegal for any citizen of the Mideast to smoke in a public area.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking in private areas shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

[Purple State]

I introduce some amendments to the smoking bill.

The Public Smoking Act
1. It shall be illegal for any citizen of the Mideast to smoke in a public area.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking in private areas shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

I still don't like the bill. Could you add the follow?

4. $50 million dollars shall be apportioned for the construction and designation of "smoker-friendly" zones which shall be made suitable for people to smoke in free of charge.

Also, an amendment to clause 2, adding the following sentence: "All proceeds from said fines shall contribute to the construction and designation of "smoker-friendly" zones throughout the region, as outlined in Clause 4."

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I fully support the Bill with PS's additions.

[big bad fab]

I don't support any such ban.  I think people should have the right to decide if they want to smoke.  It's up to the restaurants or other establishments to make their own decisions otherwise.

What are we defining as public place?  Restaurants? city sidewalks? anywhere outside of your own home?

Areas with a roof, not owned by private persons or privately owned but open to public regarding civil security and protection laws.
(in France, we've got a law that define ERP, "établissements recevant du public", which firemen and state civil servants have to check in order to see if they can stay open to public, with enough emergency way-outs, etc.)

A good idea, but, of course, not any dollar for facilities to smokers: they can smoke in "open" areas, that's all. If they want specific structures, they ahev to pay for them.
If I want to eat chocolate in public places, I don't demand that public money funds a free chocolate-delivery.

[Purple State]

I don't support any such ban.  I think people should have the right to decide if they want to smoke.  It's up to the restaurants or other establishments to make their own decisions otherwise.

What are we defining as public place?  Restaurants? city sidewalks? anywhere outside of your own home?

Areas with a roof, not owned by private persons or privately owned but open to public regarding civil security and protection laws.
(in France, we've got a law that define ERP, "établissements recevant du public", which firemen and state civil servants have to check in order to see if they can stay open to public, with enough emergency way-outs, etc.)

A good idea, but, of course, not any dollar for facilities to smokers: they can smoke in "open" areas, that's all. If they want specific structures, they ahev to pay for them.
If I want to eat chocolate in public places, I don't demand that public money funds a free chocolate-delivery.

The point is that you're allowed to eat chocolate in public. Why should they have to pay for structures in which to smoke when you took away their places?

[big bad fab]

I don't support any such ban.  I think people should have the right to decide if they want to smoke.  It's up to the restaurants or other establishments to make their own decisions otherwise.

What are we defining as public place?  Restaurants? city sidewalks? anywhere outside of your own home?

Areas with a roof, not owned by private persons or privately owned but open to public regarding civil security and protection laws.
(in France, we've got a law that define ERP, "établissements recevant du public", which firemen and state civil servants have to check in order to see if they can stay open to public, with enough emergency way-outs, etc.)

A good idea, but, of course, not any dollar for facilities to smokers: they can smoke in "open" areas, that's all. If they want specific structures, they ahev to pay for them.
If I want to eat chocolate in public places, I don't demand that public money funds a free chocolate-delivery.

The point is that you're allowed to eat chocolate in public. Why should they have to pay for structures in which to smoke when you took away their places?

I meant "if I want to eat chocolate in OPEN public places". Without a roof.

[Purple State]

Ah, because I believe the bill includes smoking in open public spaces like parks, roads, etc. Not just closed public spaces.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

A definition of what a public place refers to here in the bill would probably be in order.

I don't think anyone wants to stop smokers from smoking outside, but rather in resturants, hair salons, busses and similar.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Just to let you all know.  Swedish cheese has been appointed - make sure to swear yourself in.

[Peter]

This Assembly is now properly constituted and gavelled to order.

I request that members submit business for our consideration.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I'd like to propose the following change to the bill.

The Public Smoking Act
1. It shall be illegal for any citizen of the Mideast to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as restaurants, bars, public transporting, cinemas, and libraries.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking in private areas shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

Does that clearify it?

[Peter]

There is no bill on the floor of this Assembly.

(For those not adept with Parliamentary Procedure, because tmthforu94 left the Assembly, his bill died. You are of course welcome to introduce exactly the same bill with whatever amendments you like already made.)

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

There is no bill on the floor of this Assembly.

(For those not adept with Parliamentary Procedure, because tmthforu94 left the Assembly, his bill died. You are of course welcome to introduce exactly the same bill with whatever amendments you like already made.)

Oh I see

I'd like to introduce the following bill to the Assembly:

1. It shall be illegal for any citizen of the Mideast to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as restaurants, bars, public transporting, cinemas, and libraries.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking in private areas shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

[Purple State]

That seems far better than the previously introduced versions. It is a fire hazard after all.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There is no bill on the floor of this Assembly.

(For those not adept with Parliamentary Procedure, because tmthforu94 left the Assembly, his bill died. You are of course welcome to introduce exactly the same bill with whatever amendments you like already made.)

Oh I see

I'd like to introduce the following bill to the Assembly:

1. It shall be illegal for any citizen of the Mideast to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as restaurants, bars, public transporting, cinemas, and libraries.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking in private areas shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

First, a couple of things:

1. I have a problem with clause 1.  The wording makes it illegal for a Mideasterner to smoke in a public place, so technically, if I were to smoke in California, I could be prosecuted back home under this law.  Furthermore, somebody from the Pacific could smoke here in the Mideast.
2. What are we defining as "private areas"?  Are restaurants and businesses public or private?

[Peter]

The following bill is placed in the queue.

Xth Constitutional Amendment

Article IV, Section 1, Clause 7 is amended to read:

In order to be a candidate on the ballot, a candidate must declare their candidacy at least two days before the election.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right it does. *faceplam* I'll change it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A resturant is open to the public as anyone can walk in to a resturant sit down and order a meal. Businesses, well shops and stores would be subject to this law, but an office were only the workers are allowed in would not since not anyone can just walk in there.

I know it's a bit poorly worded in the bill, I'll change it as well. 

I'd like to amend the bill to read:

1. It shall be illegal in the Mideast, for a person to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as bars, restaurants, public transporting, cinemas, and libraries.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking inside buildings that are not open to the public, shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

Is it better?

The following bill is placed in the queue.

Xth Constitutional Amendment

Article IV, Section 1, Clause 7 is amended to read:

In order to be a candidate on the ballot, a candidate must declare their candidacy at least two days before the election.

I support this amendment.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right it does. *facepalm* I'll change it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A resturant is open to the public as anyone can walk in to a resturant sit down and order a meal. Businesses, well shops and stores would be subject to this law, but an office were only the workers are allowed in would not since not anyone can just walk in there.

I know it's a bit poorly worded in the bill, I'll change it as well. 

I'd like to amend the bill to read:

1. It shall be illegal in the Mideast, for a person to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as bars, restaurants, public transporting, cinemas, and libraries.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking inside buildings that are not open to the public, shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

Is it better?

The following bill is placed in the queue.

Xth Constitutional Amendment

Article IV, Section 1, Clause 7 is amended to read:

In order to be a candidate on the ballot, a candidate must declare their candidacy at least two days before the election.

I support this amendment.

I agree with everything said by JOHN91043353 here.

[big bad fab]

In clause 1, can't you write "buildings, establishments and infrastructures (the latter not opened to fresh air)", or something like that, because public transports aren't precisely buildings or establishments ?

Sorry for my English words which are not precise enough, but everyone may have understood what is my suggestion.

[Badger]

The following bill is placed in the queue.

Xth Constitutional Amendment

Article IV, Section 1, Clause 7 is amended to read:

In order to be a candidate on the ballot, a candidate must declare their candidacy at least two days before the election.

An excellent idea which I fully support. May I suggest (as a constituent) that the assembly modify language to:

"In order to be a candidate on the ballot, a candidate must declare their candidacy for that office on the Candidate Declaration Thread at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the beginning of voting, other than absentee balloting, for said election."

The modified language would avoid confusion and guaranteed resulting litigation in a couple ways.
With the "two days" language there would inevitably be an election with the voting booth scheduled to start at (e.g.) 12:01 AM on the 3rd of the month, for which a candidate will declare their candidacy at 11:58 PM on the 1st and argue they declared "2 days before the election". "48 hours" will nip such lawsuits in the bud and is consistant with the amendment's goal of discouraging last minute candidacies.

The modified language also mandates declaration for specific office(s) on a prominent atlas thread designed for such purpose, to avoid anyone (for whatever reason) running a stealth campaign by posting an intent to run for "anything/everything" buried in a little-followed thread then claiming that met the technical requirements for ballot access, even though it clearly goes against the spirit and intent of the law.

Again, as I am not an assembly member at this time, I can only suggest such modifications in the hope others who are will formally propose an amendment for this worthwhile law.

[tmthforu94]

The following bill is placed in the queue.

Xth Constitutional Amendment

Article IV, Section 1, Clause 7 is amended to read:

In order to be a candidate on the ballot, a candidate must declare their candidacy at least two days before the election.

An excellent idea which I fully support. May I suggest (as a constituent) that the assembly modify language to:

"In order to be a candidate on the ballot, a candidate must declare their candidacy for that office on the Candidate Declaration Thread at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the beginning of voting, other than absentee balloting, for said election."

The modified language would avoid confusion and guaranteed resulting litigation in a couple ways.
With the "two days" language there would inevitably be an election with the voting booth scheduled to start at (e.g.) 12:01 AM on the 3rd of the month, for which a candidate will declare their candidacy at 11:58 PM on the 1st and argue they declared "2 days before the election". "48 hours" will nip such lawsuits in the bud and is consistant with the amendment's goal of discouraging last minute candidacies.

The modified language also mandates declaration for specific office(s) on a prominent atlas thread designed for such purpose, to avoid anyone (for whatever reason) running a stealth campaign by posting an intent to run for "anything/everything" buried in a little-followed thread then claiming that met the technical requirements for ballot access, even though it clearly goes against the spirit and intent of the law.

Again, as I am not an assembly member at this time, I can only suggest such modifications in the hope others who are will formally propose an amendment for this worthwhile law.

Agreed. I mean, isn't it like, 7 days now? If I was running for the Mideast Assembly, I probably would have missed the deadline too. Maybe it would have been better if someone would have notified that you had to declare by a certain day.

[Peter]

Whilst I appreciate the discussion of my proposed amendment, I ask that debate of the bill be held until it is on the floor - it can often be difficult to keep track of the present business.

On the Public Smorking Ban Bill:

There has been a proposed amendment to change the bill from the sponsor to the following:

1. It shall be illegal in the Mideast, for a person to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as bars, restaurants, public transporting, cinemas, and libraries.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking inside buildings that are not open to the public, shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

And officepark has indicated his assent above and so I shall input the changes as a friendly amendment. I shall also use Speaker's discretion to amend "transporting" to "transportation.

Public Smoking Ban Bill
1. It shall be illegal in the Mideast, for a person to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as bars, restaurants, public transportation, cinemas, and libraries.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking inside buildings that are not open to the public, shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

Assemblymen have 24 hours to object to any of the above changes.