NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate]

[Yanalia]

Limiting Legislation Act
Urgency: Utmost

Drafted By: The Treorai
Sponsor(s): Hathradic States, Beta Test.

BELIEVING That in a democratic society, Basic Human Rights should be defended,

APPALLED At the fact that some politicians would seek to violate the basic human rights of the citizens of our nation,

DEFINES A "Citizen" as any registered member of our nation.

FURTHER DEFINES Basic Human Rights As;

(1) The right for all born humans to live,

(2) The right to free speech,

(3) The right to free thought,

(4) The right to actively participate in government

(5) The right to free expression,

(6) Freedom of and from Religion,

(7) The right to own firearms and ammunition, subject to reasonable restrictions for public safety,

(8) The right to a fair and balanced trial,

(9) The right to a paid or court appointed attorney in the court of law,

(11) No one can be deprived of property, unless demanded by public necessity, legally constituted, and under the condition of a just and prior compensation,

(12) Freedom from unjustified search and seizure of private property,

FURTHER BELIEVES That the Senate has no place violating these aforementioned rights of our citizens,

PREVENTS Legislation suppressing the speech, thought, and general expression of citizens,

DICTATES No Person is above the law, and all people must adhere to it,

FURTHER DICTATES Thoughts and speech harmful, or seditious in nature are not protected by this act,
ALSO DEFINES "Harmful or Seditious in nature" as slander, personal information not belonging to they who utter the information, sensitive information, open threats against another person, and threats of open rebellion, or terrorism against our nation.
ALSO DICTATES This act does not protect those using other people's work without permission of the owner,

BANS Slavery, and other forms of non-paid labor, such as Child Labor, and the owning of human beings,

ESTABLISHES This as the official Bill of Rights of our Nation.

Used both of the amendments Nepal suggested. Used one of the ones Polvia suggested.

Remove the part I striked and I'll cosponsor.

Not necessarily sponsor, but I'll vote for it if that change is made.

[Venaleria]

Then I withdraw my wish to be Supreme Court Justice once the rules/bills required are made. I'd rather keep a cabinet position now. Maybe in the future once my term has ended though....

[Grenartia]

Remove the part I striked and I'll cosponsor.

Not necessarily sponsor, but I'll vote for it if that change is made.

Opposed to the proposed changes, and I support the current firearms clause.

[Regnum Dominae]

Not necessarily sponsor, but I'll vote for it if that change is made.

Opposed to the proposed changes, and I support the current firearms clause.

Do you realize that in its current state the bill would literally allow regulation of thoughts?

FURTHER DICTATES Thoughts and speech harmful, or seditious in nature are not protected by this act,

[Evraim]

Opposed to the proposed changes, and I support the current firearms clause.

Do you realize that in its current state the bill would literally allow regulation of thoughts?

You do love Big Brother, don't you, senator?

*loads rifle*

If so, this shouldn't be a problem...

[Grenartia]

Opposed to the proposed changes, and I support the current firearms clause.

Do you realize that in its current state the bill would literally allow regulation of thoughts?

FURTHER DICTATES Thoughts and speech harmful, or seditious in nature are not protected by this act,

Fine. Take out the bit about thoughts. But things like libel/slander, impersonating somebody without their informed consent, threatening people, etc., NEED to stay in this bill.

[Yanalia]

Do you realize that in its current state the bill would literally allow regulation of thoughts?

FURTHER DICTATES Thoughts and speech harmful, or seditious in nature are not protected by this act,

Fine. Take out the bit about thoughts. But things like libel/slander, impersonating somebody without their informed consent, threatening people, etc., NEED to stay in this bill.

The language is "harmful speech." which is far too broad for my taste. The part about "sensitive information" is similar. We should just take that out. The US Constitution protects freedom of speech, but still makes threats and libel and the like illegal. We don't need to talk about those in the bill of rights.

[Regnum Dominae]

Do you realize that in its current state the bill would literally allow regulation of thoughts?

FURTHER DICTATES Thoughts and speech harmful, or seditious in nature are not protected by this act,

Fine. Take out the bit about thoughts. But things like libel/slander, impersonating somebody without their informed consent, threatening people, etc., NEED to stay in this bill.

It's way too broad still. "Harmful" can be interpreted as anything that offends anyone. I'm opposed to any restriction on so called "seditious" speech. It's the job of the state to serve the people, not the other way around.

Also "sensitive information" could be used by the state to censor news of bad things they've done.

[Grenartia]

Fine. Take out the bit about thoughts. But things like libel/slander, impersonating somebody without their informed consent, threatening people, etc., NEED to stay in this bill.

It's way too broad still. "Harmful" can be interpreted as anything that offends anyone. I'm opposed to any restriction on so called "seditious" speech. It's the job of the state to serve the people, not the other way around.

Also "sensitive information" could be used by the state to censor news of bad things they've done.

I feel you were too broad with cutting out the entire clause. I agree with the objections you just listed. However, if those where the only things you objected to, you could've posted alternate language in the clause, instead of crossing it out entirely and not offering up a suitable replacement.

[NSG Senate Administrators]

Apologies for the intrusion, Senators, but there is some information that is applicable to you: viewtopic.php?p=14629018#p14629018

[Potenco]

Apologies for the intrusion, Senators, but there is some information that is applicable to you: viewtopic.php?p=14629018#p14629018

Thank you for informing us.

Come on everyone, lets keep this professional, leave the flaming for the rest of NS!

[Ainin]

Apologies for the intrusion, Senators, but there is some information that is applicable to you: viewtopic.php?p=14629018#p14629018

Thank you for informing us.

Come on everyone, lets keep this professional, leave the flaming for the rest of NS!

Huzzah!

[Forster Keys]

*startles*

What are we voting on senators?

[Ainin]

*startles*

What are we voting on senators?

Nothing. We're supposed to be debating the National Bill of Rights Omnibus.

[Great Nepal]

Senatorial Supremacy Act has received required level of support, could you add it in queue please.

[Old Tyrannia]

The Commonwealth Armed Forces Act also has enough sponsors to be added to the queue.

Commonwealth Armed Forces Act

Urgency: High | Sponsors: Old Tyrannia, Evraim, Strykla, Byzantium Imperial, Great Nepal

THE SENATE OF AURENTINA,

RECOGNIZING that the Commonwealth of Aurentina currently lacks an organized military force, and that this leaves our nation vulnerable to attack;

MANDATES the formation of a national military, officially titled the Commonwealth Armed Forces;

FURTHER MANDATES the division of the Armed Forces into three branches of service, the Commonwealth Navy, the Commonwealth Army and the Commonwealth Airforce;

ESTABLISHES the Commonwealth General Headquarters as the governing body of the CAF, to be composed of the most senior officers of the three branches of service, appointed by and answerable to the Minister of Defence.

ESTABLISHES that the prerogative to declare war shall remain solely with the Senate;

ESTABLISHES the Chiefs of Staff as professional heads of the Armed Forces, including:

• The General Chief of Staff - Professional Head of the Commonwealth Army
• The Chief of Naval Staff - Professional Head of the Commonwealth Navy
• The Chief of Airforce Staff - Professional Head of the Commonwealth Airforce
• The Chief of Defence Staff - Professional Head of the entire Commonwealth Armed Forces

MANDATES that all physically and mentally fit citizens of 16 years of age and without criminal records may join the Commonwealth Armed Forces:

FURTHER MANDATES that citizens may be deployed for active duty at 18 years of age;

RECOGNIZING that enlistment in the CAF must be voluntary;

ALLOWING conscription only under a state of national emergency declared by the Senate, and mandating that conscripts with a deeply held moral objection to fighting be allowed to serve in non-combat roles.

ESTABLISHES that the salary of personnel in the CAF shall be decided by the Ministry of Defence;

MANDATES that the minimal length of service for CAF personnel shall be five years, with the option to serve an additional two years and so on until personnel are no longer physically or mentally able;

ESTABLISHES that the pension arrangements of CAF personnel shall be organized by the Ministry of Defence, subject to the approval of the Senate.

THUS ESTABLISHES the Commonwealth Armed Forces.

[Yankee Empire]

Opposed to the proposed changes, and I support the current firearms clause.

Do you realize that in its current state the bill would literally allow regulation of thoughts?

FURTHER DICTATES Thoughts and speech harmful, or seditious in nature are not protected by this act,

Leftist thought police? And you guys think NIFP are the oppressive ones?

[Great Nepal]

Opposed to the proposed changes, and I support the current firearms clause.

Do you realize that in its current state the bill would literally allow regulation of thoughts?

FURTHER DICTATES Thoughts and speech harmful, or seditious in nature are not protected by this act,

That just means the act doesn't protect those stuff, we wont make it illegal any time soon.

[Yankee Empire]

Do you realize that in its current state the bill would literally allow regulation of thoughts?

FURTHER DICTATES Thoughts and speech harmful, or seditious in nature are not protected by this act,

That just means the act doesn't protect those stuff, we wont make it illegal any time soon.

Suuuure...

[Great Nepal]

That just means the act doesn't protect those stuff, we wont make it illegal any time soon.

Suuuure...

What? We could pass another act protecting free thoughts and all speeches without contradicting this act.

[Lemanrussland]

I agree that the thoughtcrime stuff needs to be removed.

The "seditious speech" thing is also too broad/vague.

I am all for restricting the disclosure of defense-sensitive intelligence/information, and restrictions on slander and libel, but the way they're worded is quite poor.

[Great Nepal]

I agree that the thoughtcrime stuff needs to be removed.

The "seditious speech" thing is also too broad/vague.

I am all for restricting the disclosure of defense-sensitive intelligence/information, and restrictions on slander and libel, but the way they're worded is quite poor.

Lets just pass this and then make another bill that protects free thought, and all form of speech.

[Lemanrussland]

I agree that the thoughtcrime stuff needs to be removed.

The "seditious speech" thing is also too broad/vague.

I am all for restricting the disclosure of defense-sensitive intelligence/information, and restrictions on slander and libel, but the way they're worded is quite poor.

Lets just pass this and then make another bill that protects free thought, and all form of speech.

Why the rush? Is it bad to debate and amend the bill on the floor as needed?

This is one problem I've noticed with the Senate, we are way too eager to go straight to voting and start passing bills without due deliberation.

[Great Nepal]

Lets just pass this and then make another bill that protects free thought, and all form of speech.

Why the rush? Is it bad to debate and amend the bill on the floor as needed?

This is one problem I've noticed with the Senate, we are way too eager to go straight to voting and start passing bills without due deliberation.

We been deliberating for 48 hours, we need 48 hours to pass a bill. We have 20 bills in queue. You can see why we need to rush.

[Grenartia]

I agree that the thoughtcrime stuff needs to be removed.

The "seditious speech" thing is also too broad/vague.

I am all for restricting the disclosure of defense-sensitive intelligence/information, and restrictions on slander and libel, but the way they're worded is quite poor.

Indeed.

Why the rush? Is it bad to debate and amend the bill on the floor as needed?

This is one problem I've noticed with the Senate, we are way too eager to go straight to voting and start passing bills without due deliberation.

We been deliberating for 48 hours, we need 48 hours to pass a bill. We have 20 bills in queue. You can see why we need to rush.

Well, then. That's more incentive to amend the bill ASAP.