SPC for Senate: Part X

[SPC]

I see no reason why we should elect some sort of Party-Like-It's-1789 Nay-saying Randroid.

And what do you think of my proposed amendment to the OSPR?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I see no reason why we should elect some sort of Party-Like-It's-1789 Nay-saying Randroid.

And what do you think of my proposed amendment to the OSPR?

Unnecessary and paranoid. Issues of Constitutionality should be taken up with the courts if you actually think they're necessary.

[MaxQue]

PRESS RELEASE

If I am elected Senator, the first piece of legislation I plan to introduce will be an amendment to the OSPR to make Senators give a constitutional justification for all of their bills.

And what is the constitutional justification for the piece of legislation?

[Associate Justice PiT]

PRESS RELEASE

If I am elected Senator, the first piece of legislation I plan to introduce will be an amendment to the OSPR to make Senators give a constitutional justification for all of their bills.

And what is the constitutional justification for the piece of legislation?

     Basically where exactly in the Constitution it says that the Senate has the power to do what the bill entails.

[MaxQue]

PRESS RELEASE

If I am elected Senator, the first piece of legislation I plan to introduce will be an amendment to the OSPR to make Senators give a constitutional justification for all of their bills.

And what is the constitutional justification for the piece of legislation?

     Basically where exactly in the Constitution it says that the Senate has the power to do what the bill entails.

That was a question about the justification for this bill.

[Purple State]

PRESS RELEASE

If I am elected Senator, the first piece of legislation I plan to introduce will be an amendment to the OSPR to make Senators give a constitutional justification for all of their bills.

And what is the constitutional justification for the piece of legislation?

I agree with Max and Marokai. If you have a question about the constitutionality of a bill you can look it up. If you aren't convinced by your reading of the Constitution you can challenge the legislation in court.

[Hash]

PRESS RELEASE

If I am elected Senator, the first piece of legislation I plan to introduce will be an amendment to the OSPR to make Senators give a constitutional justification for all of their bills.

For one, we aren't judges and there's already a Supreme Court. Secondly, we shouldn't be expected to act like judges. Thirdly, expect much less activity in the Senate if you go around forcing everybody to look up the constitutionality or constitutional section which justifies every single piece of legislation.

I would oppose this legislation.

[SPC]

I propose this because it would be burdensome for the Court to hear every single case where a bill is of dubious constitutionality. Since the Senators are required to swear an oath to protect the Constitution, I would think that it wouldn't be so much trouble as to confirm that the Constitution permits the legislation they wish to propose.

[Hash]

I propose this because it would be burdensome for the Court to hear every single case where a bill is of dubious constitutionality.

... and there are that many of those bills already?

[SPC]

PRESS RELEASE

If I am elected Senator, the first piece of legislation I plan to introduce will be an amendment to the OSPR to make Senators give a constitutional justification for all of their bills.

And what is the constitutional justification for the piece of legislation?

Article I, Section 3, Clause 1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that comment demonstrates exactly why we need this legislation. It is an embarrasement that many of our Senators are unfamiliar with our Constitution. Additionally, our own president doesn't even know we don't have an interstate commerce clause!

[SPC]

I propose this because it would be burdensome for the Court to hear every single case where a bill is of dubious constitutionality.

... and there are that many of those bills already?

By Senator Marokai Blue's own admission, yes

[SPC]

I would like to thank Senator North Carolina Yankee for bringing the Enumerated Powers Resolution to the Senate floor.

[Purple State]

I propose this because it would be burdensome for the Court to hear every single case where a bill is of dubious constitutionality.

... and there are that many of those bills already?

By Senator Marokai Blue's own admission, yes

You should feel welcome to challenge the constitutionality of cases, as should all citizens if you believe legislation has impinged upon your rights. I don't think it will be too much for the Court to handle. It hasn't seemed to overly burden them yet.

On a side note, I do agree with you that Senators and office holders should be far more familiar with federal and regional constitutions and statutes.

[SPC]

I propose this because it would be burdensome for the Court to hear every single case where a bill is of dubious constitutionality.

... and there are that many of those bills already?

By Senator Marokai Blue's own admission, yes

You should feel welcome to challenge the constitutionality of cases, as should all citizens if you believe legislation has impinged upon your rights. I don't think it will be too much for the Court to handle. It hasn't seemed to overly burden them yet.

On a side note, I do agree with you that Senators and office holders should be far more familiar with federal and regional constitutions and statutes.

I do plan on contesting some legislation in front of the Court in the near future. However, I find it absurd that we do not have constitutional debates in the Senate before the bills are passed. Just because the Court is the final arbiter on constitutional matters doesn't mean that the Senate is absolved on all responsibility for making sure that the legislation they pass is constitutional.

[Purple State]

I propose this because it would be burdensome for the Court to hear every single case where a bill is of dubious constitutionality.

... and there are that many of those bills already?

By Senator Marokai Blue's own admission, yes

You should feel welcome to challenge the constitutionality of cases, as should all citizens if you believe legislation has impinged upon your rights. I don't think it will be too much for the Court to handle. It hasn't seemed to overly burden them yet.

On a side note, I do agree with you that Senators and office holders should be far more familiar with federal and regional constitutions and statutes.

I do plan on contesting some legislation in front of the Court in the near future. However, I find it absurd that we do not have constitutional debates in the Senate before the bills are passed. Just because the Court is the final arbiter on constitutional matters doesn't mean that the Senate is absolved on all responsibility for making sure that the legislation they pass is constitutional.

Those conversations are had when someone brings up the issue. We don't totally ignore it. I think it's best to restrain Senate discussion as little as possible. There are enough eyes to be able to bring those sort of problems to our attention during debate.

[SPC]

I propose this because it would be burdensome for the Court to hear every single case where a bill is of dubious constitutionality.

... and there are that many of those bills already?

By Senator Marokai Blue's own admission, yes

You should feel welcome to challenge the constitutionality of cases, as should all citizens if you believe legislation has impinged upon your rights. I don't think it will be too much for the Court to handle. It hasn't seemed to overly burden them yet.

On a side note, I do agree with you that Senators and office holders should be far more familiar with federal and regional constitutions and statutes.

I do plan on contesting some legislation in front of the Court in the near future. However, I find it absurd that we do not have constitutional debates in the Senate before the bills are passed. Just because the Court is the final arbiter on constitutional matters doesn't mean that the Senate is absolved on all responsibility for making sure that the legislation they pass is constitutional.

Those conversations are had when someone brings up the issue. We don't totally ignore it. I think it's best to restrain Senate discussion as little as possible. There are enough eyes to be able to bring those sort of problems to our attention during debate.

I was the first person in 7 pages to even ask about the constitutinality of the stimulus bill. One senator openly ridiculed me for it and another gave a flimsy justification that would fall flat on its face if he had ever read the Constitution.

[Purple State]

I propose this because it would be burdensome for the Court to hear every single case where a bill is of dubious constitutionality.

... and there are that many of those bills already?

By Senator Marokai Blue's own admission, yes

You should feel welcome to challenge the constitutionality of cases, as should all citizens if you believe legislation has impinged upon your rights. I don't think it will be too much for the Court to handle. It hasn't seemed to overly burden them yet.

On a side note, I do agree with you that Senators and office holders should be far more familiar with federal and regional constitutions and statutes.

I do plan on contesting some legislation in front of the Court in the near future. However, I find it absurd that we do not have constitutional debates in the Senate before the bills are passed. Just because the Court is the final arbiter on constitutional matters doesn't mean that the Senate is absolved on all responsibility for making sure that the legislation they pass is constitutional.

Those conversations are had when someone brings up the issue. We don't totally ignore it. I think it's best to restrain Senate discussion as little as possible. There are enough eyes to be able to bring those sort of problems to our attention during debate.

I was the first person in 7 pages to even ask about the constitutinality of the stimulus bill. One senator openly ridiculed me for it and another gave a flimsy justification that would fall flat on its face if he had ever read the Constitution.

While some senators may not be able to answer your questions and should be more familiar with the Constitution, I'll try to do it right here as I am pretty confident in my knowledge of senatorial powers (back to my days arguing the GM issue).

Article I, Section 5 outlines the powers of the Senate. We can levy taxes, as well as "build or regulate the infrastructure needed for communication and transportation," "promote Science and the useful Arts," "provide for the humanitarian relief of the distress caused by unpredictable events of natural or man-made origin" and the "necessary and proper" clause. I think just about every piece of the legislation is covered under those provisions.

[SPC]

I don't believe there is a clause that allows for the nationalization of industry.

[Purple State]

I don't believe there is a clause that allows for the nationalization of industry.

I take a broad interpretation to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

For the record, if the Enumerated Powers Resolution is signed into law unadulterated before the declaration deadline, I will drop out of the Senate race.

Lol, so we pass a bad resolution in return for political benefits? Is this how the RPP governs?

[Marokai Backbeat]

For the record, if the Enumerated Powers Resolution is signed into law unadulterated before the declaration deadline, I will drop out of the Senate race.

Lol, so we pass a bad resolution in return for political benefits? Is this how the RPP governs?

What does this have to do with the RPP? And why is it bad for Senators to take their oath seriously?

It just seems like a very awkward way to try and get a bill passed. It's like GPORTER's promise that if he won the presidential election, he'd serve one term and leave Atlasia forever, but if he didn't, he'd stay around and keep irritating us.

[Marokai Backbeat]

For the record, if the Enumerated Powers Resolution is signed into law unadulterated before the declaration deadline, I will drop out of the Senate race.

Lol, so we pass a bad resolution in return for political benefits? Is this how the RPP governs?

What does this have to do with the RPP? And why is it bad for Senators to take their oath seriously?

It just seems like a very awkward way to try and get a bill passed. It's like GPORTER's promise that if he won the presidential election, he'd serve one term and leave Atlasia forever, but if he didn't, he'd stay around and keep irritating us.

I don't have high expections for the resolution passing in this Senate. So, I was just saying that by some longshot that the bill passes, I will drop out of the race. Are you suggesting that I issue a retraction?

I might be willing to give the resolution consideration if you take back such a pledge. It just doesn't seem right, to me.

[Vepres]

I don't believe there is a clause that allows for the nationalization of industry.

I take a broad interpretation to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although, nationalization could be interpreted as violating Article I, Section 5, Clause 4:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bold is mine.

[Хahar 🤔]

Maybe I should take every piece of economic legislation interfering with that to court. It seems that everything would.

[Vepres]

Maybe I should take every piece of economic legislation interfering with that to court. It seems that everything would.

Well, no. As long as regulations, taxes, etc. are applied to an industry as a whole, it is undistorted. However, this bailout favors the big 3 American companies, while giving no relief to the American divisions of foreign automakers.