Mideast Assembly Thread

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I wish you would reconsider splitting the bill. As you know I support the first and forth clauses, and would like to vote in support of them. However I will vote Nay on the amendment as currently written.

[big bad fab]

I wish you would reconsider splitting the bill. As you know I support the first and forth clauses, and would like to vote in support of them. However I will vote Nay on the amendment as currently written.

Thanks to have made your position clear, Mr. Speaker.
I may think again, but need to know Badger's own opinion on the proposal.

[Badger]

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.

Thank you for your patience, Fab. I have to admit though, that I still have numerous concerns about your proposal---maybe even more than before.

First off, while you've given some overview as to the general ideas you're trying to include into your amendment you haven't put forth an actual revised version of your proposal including the necessary changes in language.

Second, I don't see anything in your revisions that addresses the problems Peter correctly pointed out (though presenting a revised version as mentioned in my first concern may address that somewhat).

Third, I agree with Swede's position that such completely different issues should be submitted and considered separately.

Fourth, personally I'm leery of the first proposal due to my personal views. I'm a "moderate" on capital punishment and, while I'm not seeking to re-institute it at this time, I don't seek to hinder it either. More importantly I'm very concerned about the amendment being used to undermine dieing with dignity/euthanasia laws which I support.

Fifth, I have concerns about the stated aim of your second proposal. I too believe strongly in the rights of private property and the need to limit abuse of eminent domain and the like. But I do not want to see even tepid regulation passed by the Assembly and signed by the Governor subject to constitutional challenge based on a "horse and buggy" interpretation of private property. If a decidedly limited and voluntary piece of legislation effecting private property like the Freedom to Roam Where Inks Tells You Act would be deemed unconstitutional under this provision, I have to say it would be quite bad for the region to pass it.

Sorry if I sound harsh. I'm honestly not trying to be. But for those stated reasons I have to say I oppose the proposals.

[Badger]

EMERGENCY MEASURE TO AMEND THE MIDEAST ELECTION CONSOLIDATION STATUTE.

Effective immediately, the Mideast Election Consolidation Statute is hereby amended as follows:

Section 2: Determination of the Winner
1. If any candidate shall gain the greatest number of highest preference votes, then that candidate shall be declared the winner of the election. In Assembly elections, the candidate that receives a plurality of highest preference votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes and second preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first seat shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, and third preference and that has not already been elected to the first two seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, third preference votes and fourth preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first three seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, third preference votes, fourth preference votes, and fifth preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first four seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly.


Thanks again to Senator Franzl for noting this oversight. We need to pass this amendment immediately for the forthcoming election.

Any comments or other things we've missed here?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

EMERGENCY MEASURE TO AMEND THE MIDEAST ELECTION CONSOLIDATION STATUTE.

Effective immediately, the Mideast Election Consolidation Statute is hereby amended as follows:

Section 2: Determination of the Winner
1. If any candidate shall gain the greatest number of highest preference votes, then that candidate shall be declared the winner of the election. In Assembly elections, the candidate that receives a plurality of highest preference votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes and second preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first seat shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, and third preference and that has not already been elected to the first two seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, third preference votes and fourth preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first three seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, third preference votes, fourth preference votes, and fifth preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first four seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly.


Thanks again to Senator Franzl for noting this oversight. We need to pass this amendment immediately for the forthcoming election.

Any comments or other things we've missed here?

Although I'd personally like to see a switch to STV system, the most important thing right now is that we have an electoral system that works next week, and then we can allow the next Assembly to work out details on electoral reform instead.

I'd therefore urge a quick passage of this bill. And unless Big Bad Fab objects, I'd like to move to a vote ASAP. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Necessary common-sense bill.  It'll be signed immediately upon passage.

[big bad fab]

Big thanks to Franzl.
And I thank our Governor to be fair again and to stick to the will of the majority of our citizens.

I agree with our Speaker: the next Assembly will have to discuss another electoral system. And this may be a BIG discussion, as many systems are possible. For the moment, we need to be sure the 5 seats are created before next week.

I agree with Badger's amendment to the Mideast election consolidation Statute and I'm ready to vote.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

EMERGENCY MEASURE TO AMEND THE MIDEAST ELECTION CONSOLIDATION STATUTE.

Effective immediately, the Mideast Election Consolidation Statute is hereby amended as follows:

Section 2: Determination of the Winner
1. If any candidate shall gain the greatest number of highest preference votes, then that candidate shall be declared the winner of the election. In Assembly elections, the candidate that receives a plurality of highest preference votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes and second preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first seat shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, and third preference and that has not already been elected to the first two seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, third preference votes and fourth preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first three seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, third preference votes, fourth preference votes, and fifth preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first four seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly.

Ok let's not make this take longer than it needs to.

Let us vote. 

[big bad fab]

AYE

[Хahar 🤔]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I believe STV would be accomplished by simply repealing that section. At least, that's how it was in my Constitution; I don't know if that's been carried over into the current one.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Big thanks to Franzl.
And I thank our Governor to be fair again and to stick to the will of the majority of our citizens.

I agree with our Speaker: the next Assembly will have to discuss another electoral system. And this may be a BIG discussion, as many systems are possible. For the moment, we need to be sure the 5 seats are created before next week.

I agree with Badger's amendment to the Mideast election consolidation Statute and I'm ready to vote.

Why do people keep talking about me sticking to the will of the citizens?  Did I miss something here?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think there's some confusion here among some of the Assembly members.  This bill has nothing to do with the Fairer Status Quo Amendment.

So - I just want to make sure everybody's on the same page here with this.  The fairer Status Quo amendment makes it so that a Constitutional Amendment can't be passed unless it passes 3/5 regions and it receives at least 50%+1 vote overall.  In the past, it was just required to pass 4 regions (since 75% rounds up to 80%, not down to 60%).  As well, it could pass in 4 small regions, but fail in a large region, and the popular vote would be essentially ignored, such as in this case:

Mideast: Passes 2-1
Southeast: Passes 2-1
Midwest: Passes 2-1
Northeast: Passes 2-1
Pacific: Fails 1-10

Popular vote: Fails 9-14.

So the popular vote isn't reflected in the final outcome.  That was the Amendment that we're voting on in the election booth.

The amendment to the election statute (the bill currently being voted on in this thread) makes it so that there is a procedure to elect 5 Assemblymen instead of just 3.  Again, this bill has NOTHING to do with teh Fairer Status Quo Amendment.

With all of that being said, are we all on the same page, and are there any questions?

[big bad fab]

My colleagues and I were talking about the results of the Mideast people voting on the amendment of Article III of our Constitution: 8 AYE, 3 NO.

Isn't it a clear "popular will" ?

Sticking to it is just paving the way for it to be applied AS SOON AS November election and not dragging our feet.
That's why you deserve some "thanks" .

So, we're all on the same page, "no problemo", as one of your fellow Governors would have said.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My colleagues and I were talking about the results of the Mideast people voting on the amendment of Article III of our Constitution: 8 AYE, 3 NO.

Isn't it a clear "popular will" ?

Sticking to it is just paving the way for it to be applied AS SOON AS November election and not dragging our feet.
That's why you deserve some "thanks" .

So, we're all on the same page, "no problemo", as one of your fellow Governors would have said.

I received a PM from an Assemblymemeber (and I'm trying to be careful here and not accidentally violate the Privacy Protection Act), that led me to believe that at least one member was confused about what's going on here - I've PMed the Assemblymember, but I just wanted to make sure that the entire Assembly knows what's going on here.

[Badger]

My colleagues and I were talking about the results of the Mideast people voting on the amendment of Article III of our Constitution: 8 AYE, 3 NO.

Isn't it a clear "popular will" ?

Sticking to it is just paving the way for it to be applied AS SOON AS November election and not dragging our feet.
That's why you deserve some "thanks" .

So, we're all on the same page, "no problemo", as one of your fellow Governors would have said.

I received a PM from an Assemblymemeber (and I'm trying to be careful here and not accidentally violate the Privacy Protection Act), that led me to believe that at least one member was confused about what's going on here - I've PMed the Assemblymember, but I just wanted to make sure that the entire Assembly knows what's going on here.

What Fab said. I meant to refer to the amendment passed last week expanding the Assembly to 5 seats effective this election, not the measure currently being voted on. Sorry if I misspoke (or mistyped) leading to any confusion.

Anyhoo,

AYE.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

 
  Aye


The bill passes with an unanimous aye, and is transmitted to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.


Nice to have that out of the way. Good work on getting this passed quickly, everybody.

Don't forget BBF's amendment. If there is no further debate I'll have to bring it to a final vote soon. Also I intend to introduce another bill later tonight, so stay tuned.   

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The bill has been signed.  I'd like to thank the Assembly for their quick action here.

Also, if you guys can get the Amendment through the Assembly before Thursday, we can get it on the ballot along with the Assembly elections.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

So after a very long period of waiting, with some appreciated help from my good friend Badger and our Game Moderator's analysing and advice, I can finally introduce to you ... drumroll please...

The Mideast Save the Sinking Ship That Is Our Economy Act

Section I: The Assembly recognises the need for a lower regional corporate tax, in order to stimulate our economy and help boost employment. We therefore will offer tax cuts to businesses that are successful in creating new jobs in the region. 
Definitions: "Workforce compensation" is the value of benefits paid to employees, both full and part time, whether in form of salaries/wages or the dollar value of fringe benefits such as health insurance, etc.
   1)   Effective 1/1/10, every Mideast business, company, and corporation that is successful in increasing their overall workforce compensation, regardless of whether said increase is due to additional employees being hired or increased compensation to current employees or a combination thereof in this region with at least 5 will get a 25 % tax cut reduction equivalent to double the percentage increase for employee compensation in their corporate tax rate for 2010, up to a maximum reduction of 50%. (i.e. A 3.5% increase in employment/compensation will result in a 7% reduction in corporate taxes. 5% increase will result in a 10% tax cut, etc.)
   2) Any increase of total compensation for individual employees salary and/or benefits above $100,000 per year is excluded from calculating any reduction of corporate taxes pursuant to Section 1 above.

Section II: The Assembly proposes that a number of 10 billion dollars be used in programs designed to extend and repair the region's infrastructure, such as building new roads, bridges, tunnels and railroad, increasing and promoting train activity, and renovate decayed roads.

Section III: The funding for public schools and universities will be increased with 7 % the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 5 %.   

Section V: The funding for the initiatives in Section II, III, and IV will be drawn from the 32 billions handed to the Mideast Region through the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act.

The bill has been signed.  I'd like to thank the Assembly for their quick action here.

Also, if you guys can get the Amendment through the Assembly before Thursday, we can get it on the ballot along with the Assembly elections.

Thank you for your quick action as well Governor.

I'm positive that there will be a final vote on BBF's proposal before Thursday. 

[big bad fab]

I wish to re-introduce my constitutional amendments to the Assembly, splitted in 3 different proposals:


Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

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."


Protection of Private Property Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

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

II. 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."


Right to Education Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

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."


To my fellow Assemblyman Badger:
my amendment on Private Property is not only about "taking" private property, but also about "using" it, and it is about private entities among each other (the private property taken by a public entity is already dealt with by our Constitution and I haven't changed the "public use" phrase).
Therefore, this version answers to the objection of our dear Peter about the initial "circular logic".

To my fellow Assemblymen:
If your interpretation of the Freedom to Roam Bill is right (i.e. the private property is used only upon owner's agreement), my amendment will not harm this Bill.
My main aim is to prevent bigger "exceptions" to the right to quiet private ownership.

To my fellow Assemblyman Badger:
I think the human life is sacred (in the common meaning of the word) and that another human being cannot decide to remove it. This is a principle (whether one believes in a God or in Mother Nature or in a great Human Project ) and it should be written as such.
And don't forget that I only propose to rewrite the Bill of Rights just to make this protection more difficult to remove, but our current Bill of Rights already gives a general protection to "Life".

To my fellow Assemblymen:
I urge you to consider these 3 amendments as one "package", aimed at reinforcing our Bill of Rights, even if, of course, you will decide separately on each of these 3 proposals.
And please take a little time to read the current writing of our Bill of Rights and to read my amendments: you'll see that the changes are of reinforcement  and are not at all contrary to the spirit of the current writing.

I thank you for your time.

(I'm sorry not to have introduced these 3 amendments sooner.)

[HappyWarrior]

If that one amendment is meant to remove the death penalty, thats already been done lol.

[big bad fab]

If that one amendment is meant to remove the death penalty, thats already been done lol.

I know my English is bad, but I repeat that I just want MORE protection for human life. I know there is no death penalty in the Mideast.
But I want to give human life a clear constitutional protection. And I've said that, written so, it will also prevent voluntary euthanasia.
Please read what I've written one or two pages before, throughout our debates in the Assembly.

[HappyWarrior]

If that one amendment is meant to remove the death penalty, thats already been done lol.

I know my English is bad, but I repeat that I just want MORE protection for human life. I know there is no death penalty in the Mideast.
But I want to give human life a clear constitutional protection. And I've said that, written so, it will also prevent voluntary euthanasia.
Please read what I've written one or two pages before, throughout our debates in the Assembly.

I was just asking, I did'nt understand what you meant.

[Peter]

"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."

This wording remains overly broad - not only does it bar the death penalty, but as you have already identified the euthanasia laws. It could also be picked up by the pro life crowd as a constitutional ban on abortion.

Perhaps most chilling is that it prevents law enforcement officers from using deadly force to protect innocent lives, because as government agents, they cannot kill.

If you wish to pursue this amendment I would have to advise a constitutional amendment restricted to only the death penalty, reading "Termination of human life shall not be permitted as a punishment for a crime committed under the jurisdiction of the Mideast Region" or words to that effect.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

"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."

This wording remains overly broad - not only does it bar the death penalty, but as you have already identified the euthanasia laws. It could also be picked up by the pro life crowd as a constitutional ban on abortion.

Perhaps most chilling is that it prevents law enforcement officers from using deadly force to protect innocent lives, because as government agents, they cannot kill.

If you wish to pursue this amendment I would have to advise a constitutional amendment restricted to only the death penalty, reading "Termination of human life shall not be permitted as a punishment for a crime committed under the jurisdiction of the Mideast Region" or words to that effect.

While I plan on voting against any amendment that bans the death penalty, I would agree with Peter here - what bbf has proposed would create a legal and logistical nightmare.

[Badger]

Regarding BBF's three proposals:

First off, Fab, I have to complement the clean up job you did on the language of your proposals. It is decidedly more coherent. And don't worry about your English; it's fine, and better than almost any American on this forum's French. ;-) I also understand your goal that, although capital punishment is currently prohibited by statute, you wish to further prohibit it at the constitutional level as well. I don't think that is in any way redundant as some have suggested.

That said, I have severe difficulties with the first two amendments, and am unsure about the third.

For the first, even if Peter's absolutely necessary modification were made to the language, this proposal would not only entrench prohibition of capital punishment, on which I am a moderate who opposes complete abolition, but would further utterly outlaw a woman's right to choose, voluntary informed euthanasia for the terminally ill, and possibly even affect the legal status of some forms of contraceptives, all of which I firmly support.

For the second, I do not see the need to add additional provisions beyond the Mideast's current robust Eminent Domain Statute. I'm happy to hear that you believe Inks version of FTR would not be affected by this provision, but concerned that you consider that law "the line in the sand" beyond which any further public regulation of private property would be forbidden. If such a nominal level of voluntary public involvement like FTR is the maximum regulation of private property allowed under this provision, it would utterly hamstring the public's ability to enforce environmental protection laws, public health statutes, a host of agricultural laws, etc, etc.  I have no desire to require the taxpayers to recompense polluters for  "inconveniencing" them with the enforcement of environmental laws against their property, be it farm, forest or factory. I'm not sure if that's what you intended here, my friend, but it is unquestionably what this proposal provides for.

For the third proposal, my biggest concern is I'm simply not 100% sure what your aim here is. Is it to constitutionally require education--be it public, private, or at home--through age 14? If so, I think I might support this in principle, but have a few concerns that I think can be remedied.

First, Such a broad constitutional requirement would arguably require the attempted education of even the most severely mentally disabled persons---not mere severe retardation, but even those who are in nursing care due to barely being sentient (sadly). I'm sure that isn't your intent, but that is the danger of writing something as a broad constitutional mandate rather than as a statute. ;-)

Beyond that, I might even suggest whether 14 is actually too young an age to be permitted to cease education? 16 maybe? I know many Amish drop out after 8th grade to work on the family farm, but.... I'm open to arguments here.

With those points, I might be willing to support this provision if submitted as an independent proposal, which I join Swedish Cheese in suggesting, but as it's currently attached to the other two amendments I firmly oppose I simply can't support this bill as is.