NSG Senate (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

[Imperiatom]

With all due respect, we have no Supreme Court.

I second this.

[Cosara]

I have changed my support from the Monarchy to the Republic. The only reason I continued to support the Monarchy was because I wasted an entire day on it only to have it beaten out by a bill which was drafted in 2 minutes. Anyways, now that my anger has died down, I will support the Republic.

[Denecaep]

With all due respect, we have no Supreme Court.

Guys, I was roleplaying. Won't attempt to do that again. I was trying to frame it in a way that would fit in with what we are doing here.

So let me clarify.

I, the administrator, am telling you that the Constitution comes before anything in the OP. And furthermore, when the Constitution was voted on, they were clearly trying to prevent the minority vote from being silenced. I am making an administrative ruling here - you can't move to end voting early. You can only send something back to the drafting board while it is under a debate.

If you want to portray this as an abuse of power, feel free. However, the issue here is that I need to make a choice or we will continue arguing about procedure. And frankly, the intent of procedure is pretty clear in the Constitution and my own OP.

[Imperiatom]

With all due respect, we have no Supreme Court.

Guys, I was roleplaying. Won't attempt to do that again. I was trying to frame it in a way that would fit in with what we are doing here.

So let me clarify.

I, the administrator, am telling you that the Constitution comes before anything in the OP. And furthermore, when the Constitution was voted on, they were clearly trying to prevent the minority vote from being silenced. I am making an administrative ruling here - you can't move to end voting early. You can only send something back to the drafting board while it is under a debate.

If you want to portray this as an abuse of power, feel free. However, the issue here is that I need to make a choice or we will continue arguing about procedure. And frankly, the intent of procedure is pretty clear in the Constitution and my own OP.

Yeah i totally understand your intention. I personally feel we need an emergency amendment to the constitution to clear up all the confusing contradictions after the tax bill closes. I would like to ask you to bring it to the attention of the senate please. since there has already been two disagreements about it. I ask this because whilst i understand its intentions, when dealing with the law what is intended and what is are two different things unless the bill is watertight. I don't believe the current constitution is, as indicated by two challenges in less than 24 hours.

[Segland]

Guys, I was roleplaying. Won't attempt to do that again. I was trying to frame it in a way that would fit in with what we are doing here.

So let me clarify.

I, the administrator, am telling you that the Constitution comes before anything in the OP. And furthermore, when the Constitution was voted on, they were clearly trying to prevent the minority vote from being silenced. I am making an administrative ruling here - you can't move to end voting early. You can only send something back to the drafting board while it is under a debate.

If you want to portray this as an abuse of power, feel free. However, the issue here is that I need to make a choice or we will continue arguing about procedure. And frankly, the intent of procedure is pretty clear in the Constitution and my own OP.

Yeah i totally understand your intention. I personally feel we need an emergency amendment to the constitution to clear up all the confusing contradictions after the tax bill closes. I would like to ask you to bring it to the attention of the senate please. since there has already been two disagreements about it. I ask this because whilst i understand its intentions, when dealing with the law what is intended and what is are two different things unless the bill is watertight. I don't believe the current constitution is, as indicated by two challenges in less than 24 hours.

The Constitution is quite straightforward; I personally don't feel that an amendment is necessary.

[Imperiatom]

Yeah i totally understand your intention. I personally feel we need an emergency amendment to the constitution to clear up all the confusing contradictions after the tax bill closes. I would like to ask you to bring it to the attention of the senate please. since there has already been two disagreements about it. I ask this because whilst i understand its intentions, when dealing with the law what is intended and what is are two different things unless the bill is watertight. I don't believe the current constitution is, as indicated by two challenges in less than 24 hours.

The Constitution is quite straightforward; I personally don't feel that an amendment is necessary.

This best explains why i think it needs to be re-worded. viewtopic.php?p=14061614#p14061614

[Othelos]

Guys, I was roleplaying. Won't attempt to do that again. I was trying to frame it in a way that would fit in with what we are doing here.

So let me clarify.

I, the administrator, am telling you that the Constitution comes before anything in the OP. And furthermore, when the Constitution was voted on, they were clearly trying to prevent the minority vote from being silenced. I am making an administrative ruling here - you can't move to end voting early. You can only send something back to the drafting board while it is under a debate.

If you want to portray this as an abuse of power, feel free. However, the issue here is that I need to make a choice or we will continue arguing about procedure. And frankly, the intent of procedure is pretty clear in the Constitution and my own OP.

Yeah i totally understand your intention. I personally feel we need an emergency amendment to the constitution to clear up all the confusing contradictions after the tax bill closes. I would like to ask you to bring it to the attention of the senate please. since there has already been two disagreements about it. I ask this because whilst i understand its intentions, when dealing with the law what is intended and what is are two different things unless the bill is watertight. I don't believe the current constitution is, as indicated by two challenges in less than 24 hours.

The constitution is 100% okay. Once a bill is being voted on, no one can end that vote early, whether reducing the time or withdrawing it. Basically, once the bill is on the floor, a commitment has been made.

[Othelos]

The Constitution is quite straightforward; I personally don't feel that an amendment is necessary.

This best explains why i think it needs to be re-worded. viewtopic.php?p=14061614#p14061614

Section 6 was an error which caused the confusion. The OP changed section 6, and therefore, the constitution takes precedent over those rules.

[Cosara]

The Constitution is quite straightforward; I personally don't feel that an amendment is necessary.

This best explains why i think it needs to be re-worded. viewtopic.php?p=14061614#p14061614

HAPPY 2,000th POST!

[Geilinor]

If the constitution does not state that it is LEGAL, it is ILLEGAL. The Constitution doesn't take away powers, it grants them. Anything it does not grant, we do not have.

No! NO NO NO NO NO! The constitution sets laws of what we may NOT do, senator! It of course grants some things that we may do, but that is to avoid confusion! senator, you boldly just made something up!

I agree that laws state what we may not do. Currently, we have no laws on murder in this nation. That means, unfortunately, that murder is still legal.

[Evraim]

No! NO NO NO NO NO! The constitution sets laws of what we may NOT do, senator! It of course grants some things that we may do, but that is to avoid confusion! senator, you boldly just made something up!

I agree that laws state what we may not do. Currently, we have no laws on murder in this nation. That means, unfortunately, that murder is still legal.

Excellent...

*brutally stabs Geilinor with a pineapple on the floor of the Senate*

For the Republic! Down with Caesar!

[Aeken]

If the constitution does not state that it is LEGAL, it is ILLEGAL. The Constitution doesn't take away powers, it grants them. Anything it does not grant, we do not have.

No! NO NO NO NO NO! The constitution sets laws of what we may NOT do, senator! It of course grants some things that we may do, but that is to avoid confusion! senator, you boldly just made something up!

The Constitution mandates what we can do, not what we cannot.

[Cosara]

No! NO NO NO NO NO! The constitution sets laws of what we may NOT do, senator! It of course grants some things that we may do, but that is to avoid confusion! senator, you boldly just made something up!

The Constitution mandates what we can do, not what we cannot.

HIS ARGUMENT:
The constitution tells us what we cannot do and there for gives us brackets to work within.

YOUR ARGUMENT:
The Constitution tells us what we can do and there for gives us brackets to work within.


This...Argument...Is...Pointless...

[Geilinor]

No! NO NO NO NO NO! The constitution sets laws of what we may NOT do, senator! It of course grants some things that we may do, but that is to avoid confusion! senator, you boldly just made something up!

The Constitution mandates what we can do, not what we cannot.

That's not usually how the law works. Is there a law that explicitly says, "Citizens are allowed to breathe, drink fluids, and eat"?

[Aeken]

The Constitution mandates what we can do, not what we cannot.

That's not usually how the law works. Is there a law that explicitly says, "Citizens are allowed to breathe, drink fluids, and eat"?

You obviously know that it refers to how the Senate runs, not its citizens. That is what other bills are for. We could very well do that.

The Constitution mandates what we can do, not what we cannot.

HIS ARGUMENT:
The constitution tells us what we cannot do and there for gives us brackets to work within.

YOUR ARGUMENT:
The Constitution tells us what we can do and there for gives us brackets to work within.


This...Argument...Is...Pointless...

As was that statement. I was clarifying.

[Radiatia]

Goddammit just had to edit this as my name has been spelt wrong. Honestly people, it's in my sig - I am not "Radiata".

National Tax Act:
For:38

Gordano and Lysandus, New Sapienta, Cosara, Imperiatom, Soldati senza confine, Geilinor, Mollary, Vazdania, Old Tyrannia, Polvia, Maklohi Vai, Finium, Fulflood, Othelos, Azurand, Priory Academy USSR, Bleckonia, Bolaly, TaQud, Oneracon, Subramani, Luveria, Chettsaland, The State of Czecho-Slovakia, Aeken, Radiatia, Irredento, Hippostania, Camelza, Divitaen, Wolfmanne, The Realm of God, Ainin, Aquitayne, Evraim, Pensalum, Diopolis, The Republic of Pantalleria

Against: 16

Great Nepal, Estope, Soviet Canuckistan, Chestaan, Silent Majority, Detectatia, Segland, Raurosia, Urumgard, Of the Free Socialist Territories, Regnum Dominae, Ziegenhain, Gallup, Gaveo, The Jahistic Unified Republic, Fessleria

Approval: 70.37%

---

In regards to the whole constitution thing, it was my understanding that the voting period, which begins after the motion to end debate has been fifthed, is 48 hours no matter what. There should be no way of ending a vote early.

If this isn't the case then, yes, an amendment is necessary to rectify the situation, though from reading the constitution it looks fairly straightforward.

[Finium]

I have changed my support from the Monarchy to the Republic. The only reason I continued to support the Monarchy was because I wasted an entire day on it only to have it beaten out by a bill which was drafted in 2 minutes. Anyways, now that my anger has died down, I will support the Republic.

The bill that "beat" yours, was in fact very reliant on some of your ideas and compromises, but the submitted bill began three days ago and was being edited the entire time.

[Hippostania]

After we've finished discussing the National Tax Act, perhaps we could vote on the National Symbols Act?

National Symbols Act

Urgency: High
Drafted by: Hippostania (Ind.)

RECOGNIZING the need for distinctive national flag and national coat of arms, in addition to distinctive ensigns to be used at sea and various other flags of lesser importance.
FORMALIZING the following symbols as the official national symbols:

NATIONAL AND CIVIL FLAG shall be a horizontal tricolor of black, white and blue.
STATE FLAG shall be a horizontal tricolor of black, white and blue charged with the lesser coat of arms moved 1/3 towards the hoist.
WAR FLAG shall be a red field with the state flag in the canton, charged with two crossed swords.

CIVIL ENSIGN shall be a swallowtailed horizontal tricolor of black, white and blue.
STATE ENSIGN shall be a swallowtailed horizontal tricolor of black, white and blue charged with the lesser coat of arms moved 1/3 towards the hoist.
NAVAL ENSIGN shall be a white field with a red cross, with the state flag in the canton.

NAVAL JACK shall be a square-shaped, with the lesser coat of arms charged on a blue field, fimbriated by white and black outlines.
STANDARD OF THE HEAD OF STATE shall be a stylized heraldic banner of the lesser coat of arms.
STANDARD OF THE HEAD OF GOVERNMENT shall be a blue field charged with the greater coat of arms fimbriated with white.

LESSER COAT OF ARMS shall consist of a blue shield with a white star, surrounded by twenty smaller stars in the top, with bottom-left side consisting of a red field with a white hammer, and bottom-right side consisting of a black field with a white laurel leaf.
GREATER COAT OF ARMS shall in addition to the above include a mural crown on top of the shield, two national flags in supporters, flanked by two laurel leaves and with the motto "Democratia, Sensibilitate, Libertas" in the compartment

Attachment:

[Chestaan]

After we've finished discussing the National Tax Act, perhaps we could vote on the National Symbols Act?

National Symbols Act

Urgency: High
Drafted by: Hippostania (Ind.)

RECOGNIZING the need for distinctive national flag and national coat of arms, in addition to distinctive ensigns to be used at sea and various other flags of lesser importance.
FORMALIZING the following symbols as the official national symbols:

NATIONAL AND CIVIL FLAG shall be a horizontal tricolor of black, white and blue.
STATE FLAG shall be a horizontal tricolor of black, white and blue charged with the lesser coat of arms moved 1/3 towards the hoist.
WAR FLAG shall be a red field with the state flag in the canton, charged with two crossed swords.

CIVIL ENSIGN shall be a swallowtailed horizontal tricolor of black, white and blue.
STATE ENSIGN shall be a swallowtailed horizontal tricolor of black, white and blue charged with the lesser coat of arms moved 1/3 towards the hoist.
NAVAL ENSIGN shall be a white field with a red cross, with the state flag in the canton.

NAVAL JACK shall be a square-shaped, with the lesser coat of arms charged on a blue field, fimbriated by white and black outlines.
STANDARD OF THE HEAD OF STATE shall be a stylized heraldic banner of the lesser coat of arms.
STANDARD OF THE HEAD OF GOVERNMENT shall be a blue field charged with the greater coat of arms fimbriated with white.

LESSER COAT OF ARMS shall consist of a blue shield with a white star, surrounded by twenty smaller stars in the top, with bottom-left side consisting of a red field with a white hammer, and bottom-right side consisting of a black field with a white laurel leaf.
GREATER COAT OF ARMS shall in addition to the above include a mural crown on top of the shield, two national flags in supporters, flanked by two laurel leaves and with the motto "Democratia, Sensibilitate, Libertas" in the compartment

Attachment:

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

Isn't the monarchy/republic bill next in line, senator?

[Chestaan]

Senators, how long until the current vote is finished?

[Hippostania]

Isn't the monarchy/republic bill next in line, senator?

If that is the case, I propose that we vote on the national symbols following the monarchy/republic bill. It might be better that way, if the option for monarchy ends up winning the vote, the mural crown in the coat of arms can be replaced with something more royal.

[Trotskylvania]

Senators, how long until the current vote is finished?

Six hours.

[Chestaan]

Isn't the monarchy/republic bill next in line, senator?

If that is the case, I propose that we vote on the national symbols following the monarchy/republic bill. It might be better that way, if the option for monarchy ends up winning the vote, the mural crown in the coat of arms can be replaced with something more royal.

I think you have to just propose the bill here and get the motion for it to be debated to be fifthed. As far as I know there is one other bill after the monarchy/republic bill, the Anti-secession bill.

[Fulflood]

The Constitution mandates what we can do, not what we cannot.

That's not usually how the law works. Is there a law that explicitly says, "Citizens are allowed to breathe, drink fluids, and eat"?

No, but there will be:

The Citizen Consumption of Solid Foods, Fluids and Non-noxious Gases Act (CCSFFNGA), 2013

The Government of our great nation,

recognising that the actions mentioned below are both commonplace, and in some cases, necessary for survival;

for the purposes of this bill, defines:
DRINKING as the process of sucking, gulping or otherwise inhaling through the mouth any liquid substance which has not had to be previously chewed by the teeth of the consumer;
EATING as doing the same, but in respect to solid substances and chewing with the teeth of the consumer;
CUSTARD as any thick, yellow, 'edible' fluid comprising of suspcious and vague ingredients quite possibly including egg and milk;

permits the eating of any substance commonly agreed to be a food, or not explicitly banned under any act;
allows the drinking or other inhalation of any fluids not explicitly banned otherwise, except custard, because it's quite frankly vile;
mandates the inhalation of oxygen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide (commonly known and henceforth referred to as air), as per the mixture found in the Earth's atmosphere, as a means of sustaining the life of individuals and communities across the nation, and

hereby enacts the foundation of the Drinking and Inhalation Committee (DIC) to encourage eating and drinking, and to enforce the inhalation of air on penalty of death without trial;
hereby outlaws the consumption of soup, as it does not neatly fit into one of the above three categories.

I hereby present to you, fellow Honourable Senators, the CCSFFNGA.

It's a joke, but if we do want a drugs bill (yay, more controversy!), feel free to lift bits from it

[Urumgard]

That's not usually how the law works. Is there a law that explicitly says, "Citizens are allowed to breathe, drink fluids, and eat"?

No, but there will be:

The Citizen Consumption of Solid Foods, Fluids and Non-noxious Gases Act (CCSFFNGA), 2013

The Government of our great nation,

recognising that the actions mentioned below are both commonplace, and in some cases, necessary for survival;

for the purposes of this bill, defines:
DRINKING as the process of sucking, gulping or otherwise inhaling through the mouth any liquid substance which has not had to be previously chewed by the teeth of the consumer;
EATING as doing the same, but in respect to solid substances and chewing with the teeth of the consumer;
CUSTARD as any thick, yellow, 'edible' fluid comprising of suspcious and vague ingredients quite possibly including egg and milk;

permits the eating of any substance commonly agreed to be a food, or not explicitly banned under any act;
allows the drinking or other inhalation of any fluids not explicitly banned otherwise, except custard, because it's quite frankly vile;
mandates the inhalation of oxygen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide (commonly known and henceforth referred to as air), as per the mixture found in the Earth's atmosphere, as a means of sustaining the life of individuals and communities across the nation, and

hereby enacts the foundation of the Drinking and Inhalation Committee (DIC) to encourage eating and drinking, and to enforce the inhalation of air on penalty of death without trial;
hereby outlaws the consumption of soup, as it does not neatly fit into one of the above three categories.

I hereby present to you, fellow Honourable Senators, the CCSFFNGA.

[spoiler]It's a joke, but if we do want a drugs bill (yay, more controversy!), feel free to lift bits from it

This is an outrage! Soup is one of the tenets of a free society!