Mideast Assembly Thread

[big bad fab]

Does our fellow assemblyman Badger have comments on my proposed Amendments to our Bill of Rights ?

Our dear Governor has let us some more days to discuss on these, if we want to include them on a big session of vote on, well, 3 series of Amendments:
-> 3 to 5 seats
-> 2 to 3 months
-> (hopefully) some amendments to our Bill of Rights.

I am myself on holidays for some days, but I check regularly our Assembly debates.
Remote legislative work !

[Peter]

[...]
Reinforcement of Rights Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution
[...]

Mr Speaker, I must beg the chamber's pardon for my interruption, but I believe that these proposals must be given serious pause for consideration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The author here misunderstands what the phrase due process of Law entails. Due Process of Law is not the sum of the protections afforded by statutory Law, but by the Law of the Land, i.e. the protections of Constitutional Law, Statutory Law and Precedental Law (the decisions of the Courts).

The phrase "due process of Constitutional Law" therefore doesn't make any sense, and certainly has no history of interpretation in the Common Law system.

If the author's desire is to ban the death penalty except in the case of another amendment, then he should do just that, not something that obfuscates the true purpose.

No person shall be deprived of life by any agency of government whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a wonderful piece of circular logic, and again stems from a misunderstanding of the phrase "Constitutional Law". The amendment as read literally says "The State cannot take private property for private use unless the Constitution allows it". Thats a very large hole through which to drive a truck - all one needs to be able to do is argue that some other provision of the Constitution does allow it, and you're home.

There is already a reasonably robust piece of eminent domain restriction on the books, although conceivably it could be stronger.

Ultimately the biggest problem with eminent domain precedent is what "public use" actually means - a better approach to this problem may be to state that public use means only that the property may come into state ownership, not to be transferred to private owners at some later point (though that probably needs a time limit).

I thank the Assembly for its time

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are more than welcome to interupt Peter. And I had almost forgotten about this proposal, so it's just good you reminded me.

You make some very exellent points. It's easy to miss mistakes like these when a majority of the Assembly has a different native language than English.

I'd like to propose the following amendment to the pruposed amendment. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that is a better way to formulate it at least.

BTW I knew you could not stay away completely

[Badger]

[...]
Reinforcement of Rights Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution
[...]

Mr Speaker, I must beg the chamber's pardon for my interruption, but I believe that these proposals must be given serious pause for consideration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The author here misunderstands what the phrase due process of Law entails. Due Process of Law is not the sum of the protections afforded by statutory Law, but by the Law of the Land, i.e. the protections of Constitutional Law, Statutory Law and Precedental Law (the decisions of the Courts).

The phrase "due process of Constitutional Law" therefore doesn't make any sense, and certainly has no history of interpretation in the Common Law system.

If the author's desire is to ban the death penalty except in the case of another amendment, then he should do just that, not something that obfuscates the true purpose.

No person shall be deprived of life by any agency of government whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a wonderful piece of circular logic, and again stems from a misunderstanding of the phrase "Constitutional Law". The amendment as read literally says "The State cannot take private property for private use unless the Constitution allows it". Thats a very large hole through which to drive a truck - all one needs to be able to do is argue that some other provision of the Constitution does allow it, and you're home.

There is already a reasonably robust piece of eminent domain restriction on the books, although conceivably it could be stronger.

Ultimately the biggest problem with eminent domain precedent is what "public use" actually means - a better approach to this problem may be to state that public use means only that the property may come into state ownership, not to be transferred to private owners at some later point (though that probably needs a time limit).

I thank the Assembly for its time

Peter:

First off: Good to see you posting. Secondly, thank you for eloquently stating the very concerns I've had with this proposal. The first part should be rewritten as a separate proposed amendment that straight forward constitutionally prohibits capital punishment rather than the language used here. Swede's proposed amendment may help that. FWIW, I would oppose it's passage as I do support capital punishment so long as there is adaquate resources for competent defense counsel and a robust appeals process.

The second portion also suffers from drafting confusion, and regardless I believe the Mideast Eminent Domain Restriction Statute and the current constitutional protections against taking of propoerty without due process of law and adaquate compensation together adaquately addresses the concerns Fab has over taking of private property, and the proposal here is thus unnecessary.

For the above reasons, I would oppose the proposal at this time, though perhaps Fab could explain if I've misunderstood anything here.

[big bad fab]

I thank our former speaker to answer to the "old" question I've asked well before putting forward my proposal, but which remained without answer at the time, and which was about the simple meaning of the word "Law" in our Bill of Rights.

The problem is clearly that I wasn't born in a Common Law country... and that English isn't my native language, of course...
So I wasn't sure of the meaning of "Law". In French (and in other Latin Law systems), you've got a formal hierarchy between
le droit constitutionnel, more or less "harmed" by le droit international, especially from European origin,
la loi,
le règlement,
les circulaires.
And we always specify which level we refer to.

My concern is to give Life and Property the strongest protection.

The problem is that I think that, when you say that Law means everything in this case, we know that Liberty (also protected by "Law") is sometimes harmed just by bills adopted by our Assembly. Life must be protected with a higher degree than that.
So, I'm going to rewrite a proposal on this point.

And the problem is that, when you see the Freedom to Roam Bill recently turned into Law in the Mideast, it's not only the Property in itself, concretely, that is at stake, but its free use by the owner.
So, I'm going to rewrite a new proposal on this, too.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with Peter, especially on the death penalty amendment - the proposed amendment is just confusing and complicated, and while I oppose a ban on the death penalty, if we are going to ban it, at least say so clearly.

[Badger]

Swedish Cheese advises the economic development bill will take a little longer (he swears it's coming, Purple State!). So I've been given the green light to introduce this bill in the meantime so the Assembly does not go idle.

The Mideast Last Chance for Tax Cheats Bill:

1) The funding of the Mideast Regional Revenue Service for FY 2010 is increased 15%.

2) Effective 4/16/10 any person, business, corporation or other entity (hereafter: "deadbeat") which has previously failed to duly report taxes owed the Mideast region on income, sales, corporate taxes, capital gains, property, excise or other taxes levied by the Region due on or before 4/15/08 may apply to the MRRS for tax amnesty as described below.

3) Upon application for tax amnesty the deadbeat shall submit all missing or amended tax return forms for the tax years for which they seek amnesty by 12/31/10. The deadbeat must pay all such back taxes due, plus interest, no later than 12/31/15.

4) For all such taxes timely repaid under section 3 above, no additional MRRS administrative penalties nor other criminal liability shall attach for nonpayment or avoidance of said taxes.

5) Any deadbeat against whom a civil or criminal action, complaint or indictment regarding delinquent or unpaid taxes has been filed, or against whom MRRS audit proceedings have been initiated, is not eligible to apply for tax amnesty during the pendency of such actions.

6) Filing for tax amnesty does not prohibit the civil and/or criminal prosecution of any deadbeat for other unpaid or delinquent taxes outside the taxes for which amnesty has been applied for and granted.

7) Effective 1/1/11, MRRS administrative penalties for unpaid and delinquent taxes owed on or before 4/15/08 are increased 50%


The rationale behind this bill is straight forward. Section 1 allows for a significant increase in tax investigators and auditors. From all my reading state and federal tax offices are seriously understaffed compared to the number and complexity of tax dodging schemes set up by cheats, particularly the wealthiest and most shameless cheaters who can afford to hire a legion of lawyers and accountants to attempt hiding their assets. The amount of time required to investigate such complex mechanisms leave overburdened and understaffed revenue agents able only to pick low hanging fruit that falls into their lap rather than aggressively and persistently go after those who have the money to game the system to their advantage.

No matter how one feels about tax levels---too high, too low, not progressive enough, should be replaced by a flat tax, whatever---we can all agree that those who cheat on paying their fair share of taxes cheat every honest taxpayer and causes tax rates to rise on the scrupulous to make up the revenue lost to shameless cheats. Section 1 puts these scofflaws on notice.

Sections 2-6 give people who have cheated on their taxes previously the opportunity to come forward and admit to their unpaid taxes to be repaid with interest within 5 years, and thereby avoid large administrative penalties and possible criminal prosecution. Individuals who've already been caught and are facing audit and/or prosecution may not escape after the fact by applying for amnesty now.

The aim for the amnesty program has nothing to do with concern and mercy towards tax cheats, but everything to do with helping our beleaguered coffers and honest taxpayers during this economic crisis. Every dollar we can raise from tax cheats coming in out of the cold and paying their fair share (plus interest) is one less dollar we need to cut from education, health care, law enforcement, and infrastructure; or one less dollar we need to raise in taxes to provide needed services.

State tax amnesty programs have generally been rather successful:
http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/amnesty1.html

Section 7 drastically raises administrative penalties for those who still refuse to take advantage of the tax amnesty offered, much like California did earlier this decade (though the resulting economic chaos there obviously has nothing to do with that action). ;-) This is a stick of increased penalties to back up the carrot of amnesty. Last chance, deadbeats......

[big bad fab]

It's a fine proposal on which I largely agree.

I have 2 small remarks.

- Why not include taxes due on or before 4/15/09 ?
On 4/15/10, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't reported or paid on 4/15/09.

- Five years to pay for deadbeats seem a bit too much for me. Why not set 12/31/13 as the deadline of principle ? We all know that the MRRS is able to give some additional delays if need be.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I agree with Big Bad Fab on the point of starting in 2009, rather than 2010.  I would give them until 12/31/2011 to pay back 60%, and until 12/31/2012 to pay back the full amount.  I highly doubt these tax cheats are bereft of money.

[Badger]

It's a fine proposal on which I largely agree.

I have 2 small remarks.

- Why not include taxes due on or before 4/15/09 ?
On 4/15/10, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't reported or paid on 4/15/09.

- Five years to pay for deadbeats seem a bit too much for me. Why not set 12/31/13 as the deadline of principle ? We all know that the MRRS is able to give some additional delays if need be.

Two good points, Fab, which I'd considered in writing the bill. The first point I'd modeled the time off of some real world amnesty programs which seemed to have a lag of a couple years lag from the last eligible tax year and the amnesty period's beginning. (See link below for California's example). I'm not married to the date though, and if you assure me that your staff has determined the MRRS can adequately have deadbeats identified for the 2008 tax year as well, I'd be happy to amend the date. ;-)

The second part of including an extended 5 year repayment eligibility is to avoid the problems California had  with their tax amnesty where many deadbeats didn't come forward because they didn't have the money in hand at the time, and that is certainly an ongoing problem in the Mideast during this recession.

http://www.calchamber.com/Chamber_in_the_news/020305_Amnesty.htm


Don't forget that the interest on unpaid taxes will continue to accrue during that 5 year period until it's all paid, and they'll have to continue paying current taxes in the coming years as well, so I see more benefit and gain to regional taxpayers by giving every incentive for deadbeats to fess up and start paying back every penny they owe plus interest. For the reasons given in the article linked, I'd really like to keep the repayment schedule as extended as possible. Still, read the article and see if that changes your mind somewhat. I'm willing to listen to any continuing objections you have to a 5 year limit at that point.

[big bad fab]

It's a fine proposal on which I largely agree.

I have 2 small remarks.

- Why not include taxes due on or before 4/15/09 ?
On 4/15/10, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't reported or paid on 4/15/09.

- Five years to pay for deadbeats seem a bit too much for me. Why not set 12/31/13 as the deadline of principle ? We all know that the MRRS is able to give some additional delays if need be.

Two good points, Fab, which I'd considered in writing the bill. The first point I'd modeled the time off of some real world amnesty programs which seemed to have a lag of a couple years lag from the last eligible tax year and the amnesty period's beginning. (See link below for California's example). I'm not married to the date though, and if you assure me that your staff has determined the MRRS can adequately have deadbeats identified for the 2008 tax year as well, I'd be happy to amend the date. ;-)

The second part of including an extended 5 year repayment eligibility is to avoid the problems California had  with their tax amnesty where many deadbeats didn't come forward because they didn't have the money in hand at the time, and that is certainly an ongoing problem in the Mideast during this recession.

http://www.calchamber.com/Chamber_in_the_news/020305_Amnesty.htm


Don't forget that the interest on unpaid taxes will continue to accrue during that 5 year period until it's all paid, and they'll have to continue paying current taxes in the coming years as well, so I see more benefit and gain to regional taxpayers by giving every incentive for deadbeats to fess up and start paying back every penny they owe plus interest. For the reasons given in the article linked, I'd really like to keep the repayment schedule as extended as possible. Still, read the article and see if that changes your mind somewhat. I'm willing to listen to any continuing objections you have to a 5 year limit at that point.

Well, my dear Badger, to keep on objecting on the repayment period, I would need a precise study of who are the deadbeats, how much they must pay each, about which taxes the problem mainly is, etc.
And I must acknowledge we do not have any comprehensive study on these points.
So, I won't object on the 5-year period any more.

As for the first point, well, in the beginning of 2010, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't paid taxes due (this is the key word in your proposal) on 4/15/09 or who hasn't asked officially for delays.
So, on this point, given the fact that the law would be in force on 4/15/10 and that the MRRS would have enough time to get prepared for these new rules, I maintain my remark.

Thanks for your time.

[big bad fab]

While our colleague Badger is working on amendments, I just want to ask my fellow assemblymen about the meaning they give to the word "Law" specified in our Constitution.

Does it refer to no specific level of legislation, or to constitutional level of legislation, or to legislative level of legislation ?

I don't want to misinterprete our supreme "rule" in my next proposals.

Don't forget my question !

See what my problem was...
So...


I wish to re-introduce the following constitutional amendment proposal to the Assembly, in a re-written version:

Reinforcement of Rights Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."

II. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

III. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."

IV. The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."

As for clauses 1, 13 and 18, the text I wish to add to the Constitution is in bold.

- First of all, I think the Bill of Rights should include the fact that the Human Life should always be protected.
This is a principle that is debatable, of course, but which speaks for itself.

- Then, as I've already explained, I think we should protect a bit more the private property. It must be clearly written that another private person cannot take or use someone else's private property.
As for public use, I propose to add a reference to public legal entities, so that it's clearer (even if there will always be debate on the fact that everything a public entity does isn't automatically a public action; but it's really a tiny number of cases, that we can still let to the courts or to statutory law, as is already the case today).

- I've left unchanged my proposal on education.

[Badger]

It's a fine proposal on which I largely agree.

I have 2 small remarks.

- Why not include taxes due on or before 4/15/09 ?
On 4/15/10, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't reported or paid on 4/15/09.

- Five years to pay for deadbeats seem a bit too much for me. Why not set 12/31/13 as the deadline of principle ? We all know that the MRRS is able to give some additional delays if need be.

Two good points, Fab, which I'd considered in writing the bill. The first point I'd modeled the time off of some real world amnesty programs which seemed to have a lag of a couple years lag from the last eligible tax year and the amnesty period's beginning. (See link below for California's example). I'm not married to the date though, and if you assure me that your staff has determined the MRRS can adequately have deadbeats identified for the 2008 tax year as well, I'd be happy to amend the date. ;-)

The second part of including an extended 5 year repayment eligibility is to avoid the problems California had  with their tax amnesty where many deadbeats didn't come forward because they didn't have the money in hand at the time, and that is certainly an ongoing problem in the Mideast during this recession.

http://www.calchamber.com/Chamber_in_the_news/020305_Amnesty.htm


Don't forget that the interest on unpaid taxes will continue to accrue during that 5 year period until it's all paid, and they'll have to continue paying current taxes in the coming years as well, so I see more benefit and gain to regional taxpayers by giving every incentive for deadbeats to fess up and start paying back every penny they owe plus interest. For the reasons given in the article linked, I'd really like to keep the repayment schedule as extended as possible. Still, read the article and see if that changes your mind somewhat. I'm willing to listen to any continuing objections you have to a 5 year limit at that point.

Well, my dear Badger, to keep on objecting on the repayment period, I would need a precise study of who are the deadbeats, how much they must pay each, about which taxes the problem mainly is, etc.
And I must acknowledge we do not have any comprehensive study on these points.
So, I won't object on the 5-year period any more.

As for the first point, well, in the beginning of 2010, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't paid taxes due (this is the key word in your proposal) on 4/15/09 or who hasn't asked officially for delays.
So, on this point, given the fact that the law would be in force on 4/15/10 and that the MRRS would have enough time to get prepared for these new rules, I maintain my remark.

Thanks for your time.

I'm good with changing the effective date. Offer an amendment to make it effective for taxes due this year and I'll accept it as friendly.

On second thought, that's lazy of me as I'm on line and it's only changing one number. I'll post a revised version of the bill momentarily with your suggested change.

[Badger]

I agree with Big Bad Fab on the point of starting in 2009, rather than 2010.  I would give them until 12/31/2011 to pay back 60%, and until 12/31/2012 to pay back the full amount.  I highly doubt these tax cheats are bereft of money.

You would think, Ben, but check out the link regarding California's experience earlier this decade. Apparently not all tax cheats are wealthy folks stuffing their dollars away in the Caymans. Based on that experience I don't think a one or even two year extension is going to be as effective in reclaiming money for the treasury and taxpayers as a five year period.

Again, please don't confuse my extending the repayment period out as a sign of any sympathy for these deadbeats. I look upon the five year repayment period (with interest compounding every day) as simply the best way to strain every possible drop of milk from the tax cheaters cow.

Nevertheless, in light of the comments from you and Fab, I'll shave a year off the repayment period to reduce it to 4 years to make the bill more widely acceptable.

[Badger]

The Mideast Last Chance for Tax Cheats Bill:

1) The funding of the Mideast Regional Revenue Service for FY 2010 is increased 15%.

2) Effective 4/16/10 any person, business, corporation or other entity (hereafter: "deadbeat") which has previously failed to duly report taxes owed the Mideast region on income, sales, corporate taxes, capital gains, property, excise or other taxes levied by the Region due on or before 4/15/09 may apply to the MRRS for tax amnesty as described below.

3) Upon application for tax amnesty the deadbeat shall submit all missing or amended tax return forms for the tax years for which they seek amnesty by 12/31/10. The deadbeat must pay all such back taxes due, plus interest, no later than 12/31/14.

4) For all such taxes timely repaid under section 3 above, no additional MRRS administrative penalties nor other criminal liability shall attach for nonpayment or avoidance of said taxes.

5) Any deadbeat against whom a civil or criminal action, complaint or indictment regarding delinquent or unpaid taxes has been filed, or against whom MRRS audit proceedings have been initiated, is not eligible to apply for tax amnesty during the pendency of such actions.

6) Filing for tax amnesty does not prohibit the civil and/or criminal prosecution of any deadbeat for other unpaid or delinquent taxes outside the taxes for which amnesty has been applied for and granted.

7) Effective 1/1/11, MRRS administrative penalties for unpaid and delinquent taxes owed on or before 4/15/08 are increased 50%

[big bad fab]

Thanks for avoiding me to introduce formally an amendment .

I agree on the revised text.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Are you trying to get rid of the death penalty?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Are you trying to get rid of the death penalty?

Well techically he can't get rid of the death penalty because the Mideast don't have it. He's just trying to make sure it's in our constitution not just common law.


I still feel the same about the clause II and III. I support the rest of the amendment.


I have nothing further to add on Badger's proposal. Unless BBF has anything more he'd like to add I'd suggest we move forward with this bill. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Are you trying to get rid of the death penalty?

Well techically he can't get rid of the death penalty because the Mideast don't have it. He's just trying to make sure it's in our constitution not just common law.

Nevermind - I thought that the due process clause was part of the life clause - so I figured due process could void that out - my mistake.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since there has been no more debate, we'll vote on the following bill. 

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since there has been no more debate, we'll vote on the following bill. 

AYE.

[big bad fab]

AYE

[big bad fab]

And I'll intervene tomorrow (CET) on my proposed Constitutional Amendment.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

  Aye



The Ayes have it. The bill is transmitted to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.

[big bad fab]

As for my proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights,

- My proposal of protecting Life under any circumstances makes it more difficult to (re)instate the death penalty, as it would require a new amendment.
It may also, if courts judge it in that way, protect Human Life against voluntary and external euthanasia, as the word "removed" implies a voluntary action adn an action by someone else than the human being whose life is "removed".
So, to answer to our dear Governor Inks.LWC, if I am myself spontaneously in favour of death penalty when I see murders with rapes, sexual murders, murders of children or persons completely unable to defend themselves, etc, I think we must apply equally the same principle in every circumstance, because it's a sacred principle.
And, as the death penalty doesn't exist in the Mideast, it's not as if we would be slashing a penalty in force, which may have entailed some problems in terms of dissuading crimes.

- I understand the principled objections of our Speaker Sweedish Cheese, who is perfectly logical: as my point on Private Property was inspired by his Freedom to Roam Bill, it's normal that he is sceptical on my proposition.

What I can say is that, for the moment, I do not intend to split my proposal, because I want to reinforce a series of Rights, not just one, and I think it's better not to change the Bill of Rights too often.

- That's why I'd like to hear our fellow Assemblyman Badger on my re-writings, that may still be improved.

Thank you for your attention.