Home of the Brave: A 1960s Political RP (86th Congress)

[Louisianan]

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Motion to bring the FORTIFY Act to the floor by unanimous consent.

President Pro Tempore: "Do I hear an objection?"

[Newne Carriebean7]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Objection!"

[Louisianan]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Objection!"

President Pro Tempore: "Hearing an objection, the motion dies."

---

United States House of Representatives
Representative Hubert Broussard
[Democratic - 3rd District of the State of Louisiana]

"Seconded."

Speaker Pro Tempore: (After seemingly, falling asleep, the man nods himself awake,) "The motion is so granted, the House will end debate on the matter and move to a vote. Register your votes."

United States House of Representatives
Representative Hubert Broussard
[Democratic - 3rd District of the State of Louisiana]

"Aye."

[Louisianan]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Objection!"

President pro Tempore: "Hearing an objection to the unanimous consent motion, the motion dies. As the Senate is up for business, we shall continue with the docket. The Senate shall take up the Act to Authorize Phyletic Perception in Criminal Inquiries. We shall open debate on this bill with a speakers list. The chair would look favorably upon an equal number of speakers for or against. If you'd like to speak for or against, make it known now as to let the clerk determine time allotted to each speaker."

[Louisianan]

Speaker Pro Tempore: "The bill passes, and is sent to the Senate for further consideration. The Senate Floor is open to motions and debate."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Objection!"

President pro Tempore: "Hearing an objection to the unanimous consent motion, the motion dies. As the Senate is up for business, we shall continue with the docket. The Senate shall take up the Act to Authorize Phyletic Perception in Criminal Inquiries. We shall open debate on this bill with a speakers list. The chair would look favorably upon an equal number of speakers for or against. If you'd like to speak for or against, make it known now as to let the clerk determine time allotted to each speaker."

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): I would like to speak against.

[Newne Carriebean7]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Mr. President, seein' as I co-sponsored this here piece o' legislation wit' Huey Louis, I'd like for it to be known that I intend to speak for the bill."

[Louisianan]

President Pro Tempore: "Seeing as there are no more requested speakers. The chair invites Senator Fraser to speak out against the bill, for an allotted time of ten minutes. Proceed."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Senator Sofia Fraser(R-NY):

First and foremost, Mr. President, I want to make it clear that this proposal, should it become law, would be in flagrant violation of the 14th Amendment. Which holds that any person within the jurisdiction of the united states is owed equal protection under the law. Obviously equal protection is not in reference to acts, otherwise it would be impossible to define different punishments for difference persons, but in regards the the identity of individuals.

In passing this, the democratic majority in the house have proven themselves enemies of the constitution by purpose or neglect, and their continued presence in the organs of state are in insult and injury to this republic. It's constitution and it's people. We can attribute this sad state of affairs to the presence of an illegitimate contingent in both the house and senate made up of people whose position was acquired in sham elections which disenfranchised poor whites and non-whites that our constitution promises the right to vote, which has been joined by a contingent of spineless ones that are fearful of consequence that might be imposed by the illegitimate contingent on them should they not join with those efforts. The duty of the contingent of patriots who believe in our this republic, our constitution and it's people, is to ensure that contingent of spineless individuals are more fearful of consequence of failing the stand with patriots, than of failing to stand with the illegitimate. I strive to do that through proposals and rhetoric and will continue to do so.

This should all suffice to ensure that this senate votes this rubbish down or, if this body proves too infested by the illegitimate and spineless, it can still be struck down by veto or by the courts. However, I wish to go into further detail as to why this proposal is rubbish, should the cretinous forces behind this proposal attempt to mar our constitution with an effort to repeal the 14th to make way for this and similar proposals.

Section 1 neglects the fact that poor and socially alienated individuals are more likely to commit crimes period, and colored individuals are more likely to be poor and socially alienated, on account of disproportionally living under and being effected by the tyranny of illegitimate southern democratic forces that are so low and worthless that they fear being instantly out merited by black people, that they must use every trick of they can get their hands on to hold them down.

Section 2, 3 and 4 present a transparent attempt at instituting a quasi-slavery against convicted individuals, which strictly speaking is within what is allowed by the 13th amendment. However, I have absolutely no trust in those illegitimate bodies that create the conditions to send illegitimately selected individuals to this congress to make the proper decisions on who are guilty and not guilty, so it's preferable to avoid giving them new ways to punish people until we can rectify their presence in the halls of power of this nation. I will say that should we institute this form of punishment, we ought to trial it on the individuals in office who insist on acting in breech of 14th and 15th amendment first.

Section 5 represents a transparent attempt to essential federalize and institutionalize the KKK and give them the right to determine if their members are innocent or not of crimes of lynching. There is also that fact this proposal could also be used to railroad whites into guilty verdicts. I would not at all consider this an unlikely outcome, should this body be funded by local authorities and officials, which of coo ruse would give them leverage over their actions, and the Klan and their backers have some quite an interest in the oppression of poor whites and catholic whites.

In any case, it's in complete breech of the 14th amendment. Despite the utter shameful and unconstitutional nature of this proposal, I know well enough that there are those in this body that'd stoop low enough to vote for this. I only hope they will be few enough.

[Louisianan]

President Pro Tempore: "The gentlelady's points are well noted, yet despite the lack of a point of order, I'll have to ask the gentlelady to refrain from using derogatory terms in reference to members of this or the other chamber, whilst negatively characterizing or interpreting their objectives. The term, 'enemies of the constitution' will be stricken from the public record, this is not your husband's campaign event Mrs. Fraser. The chair invites Senator Sharp to the floor to speak for the bill for an allotted time of ten minutes. Proceed."

[Newne Carriebean7]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Thank you Mr. President. Now in-spite of the Senator from New York's inflamatory remarks that wound the pride n' time honored 'ditions of this hollowed chamber, I shall set that aside and focus on the bill in question.

Now, I just finished glancin' at it, so my memory won't be entirely perfect, but I'll do my best to defend such a noble piece of legislation, and hope that all senators, south, north, east n' weest are able to have an honest man's discussion on the benifits and concerns that we've got on this here bill. That's what arguin's be's 'bouts y' sees. Y'all can moan n' complain all y'alls wants, n' the other side can toss sand up yer crack!

Section two states and I quote: 'This bill would force the true perpetrator of any violent crime to direct up to $1000 of their personal funds to the wrongfully accused member of common society in damages, each year after their rightful incarceration.'

Now, it seems to me that this bill is aimed at harming the middle class, rather than the rich or the poor as my friend from New York states. Now, it's a firm cap at a thousand dollars. We're not going to have some sissy white boy cry wolf in order to weasele his way into a higher tax bracket by shakin' down the common feller. The middle class folks ought to be scared, and the poor ought to be gleeful. This legislation's effect, at least my understandin' of it and some fellers can 'rect me onna this here stuffs, It'll squeeze the old lady purse robbin middle class. It'll even prevent egrideous attempts at white collar crime by white collar fellers n' black collar fellers. So, the next time someone fakes a check in yer name, this bill will see to it that justice is served, and you is a goanna git yer funds back.

Section Three does not coddle criminals. It forces them to pick themselves up by their boots and is an attempt to turn them into better fellers n' critters n' folks. My daddy always said a day's worth of hard work didn't kill nobody, and he was right! If y'all work as hard as I do n' keep yer nose clean, y'all might even end up speakin' inna these hallowed n' honored hallways like me-selves. Notice, the previous section said they could be fined up to a thousand dollars. So I'm sure a judge or jury can see this law and interpret it as it bein' a lower amount that the poor soul needs to climb outta debt from. It could even be halfed to five hunnded dollary doos. It'll mean less grovelin' hours in' bein' a decent humman bein'. It'll mean less time bein' imprisoned fer yer earthy errors n' sins. Oh, and it'll mean less money for the greedy private prison system too, that's always a plus now ain't it?

Section Five is left up to the states. I quote Section Five now: 'Their budget will be decided by local authorities, and officials.' While the bill requires that each state form a... 'Caucasian American Interest Group Task Force', it leaves the amount of men on it's payroll, it's overall mission scope and it's overall effectiveness to the state governments and their legislatures. So say this passes, and in Albany or Boston they want to gut the program, they can do that. If they just want to have two people collectin' pay checks just to come in every day, flip on a light at the office n' pursue an arrest of a negreo, they can do that. If northern states are in such oppositon, then they can simply gut their programs of such, and pardon my french, Caigtfs. But they can't git rid o' 'em, so they can just make skeleton crews. And they say government waste's a bad thing, that's a buncha bullsh-er-pidgeoncrap if I've ever heard it!

Finally, if state's like M'sippii or South 'lina wanna ensure law and order in this country, it's on them and the people of their states to foot the bill. If they wanna hold fundraisers or fairs t' raise money that's fine by me. If my native Jackson M'sippii wants to go all out n' git a whole buncha 'ttack dawgs n' scruffy lookin' jumpers n' snazzy lookin' hats to ensure that the white man's innocence in crimes of supposed 'lynchin' is "Investigated", then that's fine by me. I'd just have to pay more in taxes as a Senator to fund it. Folks, ain't a lil' peace o' mind worth whatever cost? Ain't it? It better be, or my name's not Pinocchio. Oh, it's not? Fuck!"

[Louisianan]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Thank you Mr. President. Now in-spite of the Senator from New York's inflamatory remarks that wound the pride n' time honored 'ditions of this hollowed chamber, I shall set that aside and focus on the bill in question.

Now, I just finished glancin' at it, so my memory won't be entirely perfect, but I'll do my best to defend such a noble piece of legislation, and hope that all senators, south, north, east n' weest are able to have an honest man's discussion on the benifits and concerns that we've got on this here bill. That's what arguin's be's 'bouts y' sees. Y'all can moan n' complain all y'alls wants, n' the other side can toss sand up yer crack!

Section two states and I quote: 'This bill would force the true perpetrator of any violent crime to direct up to $1000 of their personal funds to the wrongfully accused member of common society in damages, each year after their rightful incarceration.'

Now, it seems to me that this bill is aimed at harming the middle class, rather than the rich or the poor as my friend from New York states. Now, it's a firm cap at a thousand dollars. We're not going to have some sissy white boy cry wolf in order to weasele his way into a higher tax bracket by shakin' down the common feller. The middle class folks ought to be scared, and the poor ought to be gleeful. This legislation's effect, at least my understandin' of it and some fellers can 'rect me onna this here stuffs, It'll squeeze the old lady purse robbin middle class. It'll even prevent egrideous attempts at white collar crime by white collar fellers n' black collar fellers. So, the next time someone fakes a check in yer name, this bill will see to it that justice is served, and you is a goanna git yer funds back.

Section Three does not coddle criminals. It forces them to pick themselves up by their boots and is an attempt to turn them into better fellers n' critters n' folks. My daddy always said a day's worth of hard work didn't kill nobody, and he was right! If y'all work as hard as I do n' keep yer nose clean, y'all might even end up speakin' inna these hallowed n' honored hallways like me-selves. Notice, the previous section said they could be fined up to a thousand dollars. So I'm sure a judge or jury can see this law and interpret it as it bein' a lower amount that the poor soul needs to climb outta debt from. It could even be halfed to five hunnded dollary doos. It'll mean less grovelin' hours in' bein' a decent humman bein'. It'll mean less time bein' imprisoned fer yer earthy errors n' sins. Oh, and it'll mean less money for the greedy private prison system too, that's always a plus now ain't it?

Section Five is left up to the states. I quote Section Five now: 'Their budget will be decided by local authorities, and officials.' While the bill requires that each state form a... 'Caucasian American Interest Group Task Force', it leaves the amount of men on it's payroll, it's overall mission scope and it's overall effectiveness to the state governments and their legislatures. So say this passes, and in Albany or Boston they want to gut the program, they can do that. If they just want to have two people collectin' pay checks just to come in every day, flip on a light at the office n' pursue an arrest of a negreo, they can do that. If northern states are in such oppositon, then they can simply gut their programs of such, and pardon my french, Caigtfs. But they can't git rid o' 'em, so they can just make skeleton crews. And they say government waste's a bad thing, that's a buncha bullsh-er-pidgeoncrap if I've ever heard it!

Finally, if state's like M'sippii or South 'lina wanna ensure law and order in this country, it's on them and the people of their states to foot the bill. If they wanna hold fundraisers or fairs t' raise money that's fine by me. If my native Jackson M'sippii wants to go all out n' git a whole buncha 'ttack dawgs n' scruffy lookin' jumpers n' snazzy lookin' hats to ensure that the white man's innocence in crimes of supposed 'lynchin' is "Investigated", then that's fine by me. I'd just have to pay more in taxes as a Senator to fund it. Folks, ain't a lil' peace o' mind worth whatever cost? Ain't it? It better be, or my name's not Pinocchio. Oh, it's not? Fuck!"

President Pro Tempore: "Mr. Sharp, you have been warned multiple times so far in this legislative year, and you continue to use profanity, despite my many warnings. I am forced to mute you from debate, and should a motion to censure the gentleman be made, I will be forced to recognize it. I open the Senate Floor to motions and debate on this bill, any requests for censure can be made after this bill is discussed and debate has ended."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Thank you Mr. President. Now in-spite of the Senator from New York's inflamatory remarks that wound the pride n' time honored 'ditions of this hollowed chamber, I shall set that aside and focus on the bill in question.

Now, I just finished glancin' at it, so my memory won't be entirely perfect, but I'll do my best to defend such a noble piece of legislation, and hope that all senators, south, north, east n' weest are able to have an honest man's discussion on the benifits and concerns that we've got on this here bill. That's what arguin's be's 'bouts y' sees. Y'all can moan n' complain all y'alls wants, n' the other side can toss sand up yer crack!

Section two states and I quote: 'This bill would force the true perpetrator of any violent crime to direct up to $1000 of their personal funds to the wrongfully accused member of common society in damages, each year after their rightful incarceration.'

Now, it seems to me that this bill is aimed at harming the middle class, rather than the rich or the poor as my friend from New York states. Now, it's a firm cap at a thousand dollars. We're not going to have some sissy white boy cry wolf in order to weasele his way into a higher tax bracket by shakin' down the common feller. The middle class folks ought to be scared, and the poor ought to be gleeful. This legislation's effect, at least my understandin' of it and some fellers can 'rect me onna this here stuffs, It'll squeeze the old lady purse robbin middle class. It'll even prevent egrideous attempts at white collar crime by white collar fellers n' black collar fellers. So, the next time someone fakes a check in yer name, this bill will see to it that justice is served, and you is a goanna git yer funds back.

Section Three does not coddle criminals. It forces them to pick themselves up by their boots and is an attempt to turn them into better fellers n' critters n' folks. My daddy always said a day's worth of hard work didn't kill nobody, and he was right! If y'all work as hard as I do n' keep yer nose clean, y'all might even end up speakin' inna these hallowed n' honored hallways like me-selves. Notice, the previous section said they could be fined up to a thousand dollars. So I'm sure a judge or jury can see this law and interpret it as it bein' a lower amount that the poor soul needs to climb outta debt from. It could even be halfed to five hunnded dollary doos. It'll mean less grovelin' hours in' bein' a decent humman bein'. It'll mean less time bein' imprisoned fer yer earthy errors n' sins. Oh, and it'll mean less money for the greedy private prison system too, that's always a plus now ain't it?

Section Five is left up to the states. I quote Section Five now: 'Their budget will be decided by local authorities, and officials.' While the bill requires that each state form a... 'Caucasian American Interest Group Task Force', it leaves the amount of men on it's payroll, it's overall mission scope and it's overall effectiveness to the state governments and their legislatures. So say this passes, and in Albany or Boston they want to gut the program, they can do that. If they just want to have two people collectin' pay checks just to come in every day, flip on a light at the office n' pursue an arrest of a negreo, they can do that. If northern states are in such oppositon, then they can simply gut their programs of such, and pardon my french, Caigtfs. But they can't git rid o' 'em, so they can just make skeleton crews. And they say government waste's a bad thing, that's a buncha bullsh-er-pidgeoncrap if I've ever heard it!

Finally, if state's like M'sippii or South 'lina wanna ensure law and order in this country, it's on them and the people of their states to foot the bill. If they wanna hold fundraisers or fairs t' raise money that's fine by me. If my native Jackson M'sippii wants to go all out n' git a whole buncha 'ttack dawgs n' scruffy lookin' jumpers n' snazzy lookin' hats to ensure that the white man's innocence in crimes of supposed 'lynchin' is "Investigated", then that's fine by me. I'd just have to pay more in taxes as a Senator to fund it. Folks, ain't a lil' peace o' mind worth whatever cost? Ain't it? It better be, or my name's not Pinocchio. Oh, it's not? Fuck!"

President Pro Tempore: "Mr. Sharp, you have been warned multiple times so far in this legislative year, and you continue to use profanity, despite my many warnings. I am forced to mute you from debate, and should a motion to censure the gentleman be made, I will be forced to recognize it. I open the Senate Floor to motions and debate on this bill, any requests for censure can be made after this bill is discussed and debate has ended."

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Motion to table by unanimous consent.

[Louisianan]

President Pro Tempore: "Mr. Sharp, you have been warned multiple times so far in this legislative year, and you continue to use profanity, despite my many warnings. I am forced to mute you from debate, and should a motion to censure the gentleman be made, I will be forced to recognize it. I open the Senate Floor to motions and debate on this bill, any requests for censure can be made after this bill is discussed and debate has ended."

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Motion to table by unanimous consent.

President Pro Tempore: "Do I hear an objection?"

[Louisianan]

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Motion to table by unanimous consent.

President Pro Tempore: "Do I hear an objection?"

President Pro Tempore: "Hearing no objection, the motion passes. The Phyletic Perception Bill is henceforth tabled, and may be brought back to the floor by a motion to suspend the rules."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY) put the following bill into the docket:

---

Official Name: Protection of Equal Protection Demonstrations Act

Nickname: Double Protection Act

Overview: Provides specific protections against efforts to obstruct and/or disrupt demonstrations that primarily advocate the observance of the 14th Amendment

Sponsor: Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY)

Cosponser: Representative Elizabeth Williams (R-MI-08)

---

Section 1: Recognizing that while the right to protest as a whole is sacred under the First Amendment, recent events have shown that a particular type of protest, that is protests made with purpose of advocating for the full application of the Fourteenth Amendment, have come under recent, violent and organized attack by forces that seek to undermine the Constitution of the United States of America. However, recognizing that many of those who end up participating in such efforts to undermine the constitution are often victims in their own way, this bill is intended to target the leadership and management of these efforts rather than their rank and file.

Section 2: Defines Equal Protection Demonstrations as public protests/events where their primary purpose is the advocacy for the protection and enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Section 3: Charges those who organize and/or lead efforts with the intent of obstructing and/or disrupting Equal Protection Demonstrations with an offense under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, followed by an investigation into other potential illegal activity by the accused.

(a) To aid in the deployment of adequate investigators/observers, petitions can be filled by citizens concerned that a given Equal Protection Demonstration will or has been obstructed or disrupted, which must be processed by the Department of Justice, which may prioritize on the basis of severity and volume of petitions.

(b) Where obstructive and or/disruptive efforts against Equal Protection Demonstrations are leaderless, participants are to be treated as they were organizing and/or leading efforts.

Section 4: Requires local law enforcement to provide adequate security from obstructive and/or disruptive efforts against Equal Protection Demonstrations.

(a) Failure to provide adequate security for Equal Protection Demonstrations, while having the capacity to do so will result in charges under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 against those immediately responsible for the failure to provide adequate security.

(b) To ensure the deployment of adequate security, petitions can be filled by citizens concerned that law enforcement local to a demonstration will or has failed to provide adequate security for equal protection demonstrations, which must be processed by the Department of Justice, which may prioritize on the basis of severity and volume of petitions.

(c) Should for whatever reason, adequate security for Equal Protection Demonstrations is not forthcoming, law enforcement external to the jurisdiction of the Equal Protection Demonstration are permitted, but not required to, provide reinforcement and local law enforcement are required to, within reason, cooperate with such efforts, will failure to do so invoking (a) of this section.

(d) Should regular law enforcement not be adequate security for Equal Protection Demonstrations not be forthcoming from local authorities, national guardsmen must be deployed in sufficient numbers to provide adequate security for Equal Protection Demonstrations.

Section 5: Should any section or subsection be stricken, the rest is assumed to be in force as is reasonable.

---

This bill is then honorably presented to the Senate for consideration in order to protect organizing efforts to defend our constitution to improve the United States Law and is backed by Senator Sofia Fraser.

[Chia Dal]

Speaker Pro Tempore: "The bill passes, and is sent to the Senate for further consideration. The Senate Floor is open to motions and debate."

"Mr. Speaker, I motion that we proceed with the docket."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Motion to bring the Double Protection Act to the floor by unanimous consent.

[Newne Carriebean7]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Objection!"

[Emazia]

Speaker Pro Tempore: "With Senator Sharp's objection, Senator Fraser's motion fails. Are there any other motions on the floor?"

Senator Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I motion to take up the Fusion Voting Bill."

---

Official Name: An Act to Legalise the Practice of Fusion Voting

Nickname: The Fusion Voting Bill

Overview: This bill aims to legalise fusion voting across the United States of America.

Sponsor: Senator Frank Turner (WPP-MS)
Co-Sponsors: (Here is where you put who else supports the bill, do an OOC poll to figure out what other chars would like to hop on!)

---

Section 1: This bill legalises the practice of "fusion voting" - defined as the nomination of one candidate by multiple parties - across the United States for elections wherein the office at stake is one considered to be a federal office, such as in the House and Senate, overruling any previous bill on this matter and this matter alone.

---

This bill is then honorably presented to the Senate for consideration in order to strengthen democracy in the United States and is backed by Senator Frank Turner on the 15th of March 1959

[Newne Carriebean7]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Seconded."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Objection.

[Emazia]

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Objection.

Turner looked disappointedly and sent her a note.

What would it take for you to support this bill?

President Pro Tempore: "As there is a second and an objection, the Senate will move to vote."

Senator Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "Aye."

[Newne Carriebean7]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Aye!"

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Objection.

Turner looked disappointedly and sent her a note.

What would it take for you to support this bill?

President Pro Tempore: "As there is a second and an objection, the Senate will move to vote."

Senator Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "Aye."

Sofia, upon taking Turner's note, immediately sent a note back with her reply.

Passage of my Voting Rights Enforcement Act proposal through both houses. No more, no less.

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Nay!