SouthernLaw, JennaBrklyn, & Ethan9877 Propose 'Anti-Nonsensical Legislation Act of 2016'
Jenna has just banned me from the virtual congress in a clear abuse of her power. I challenge all of you to name one current VC rule or law that I have violated. Jenna is unfit to be speaker and should be impeached for this.
As a former speaker, I think the job should come with a kind of quasi editorial role, wherein the speaker reserves the right to withhold legislation at her discretion, rendering this kind of bill unnecessary, cumbersome, and clunky.
That's called abuse of power. Imagine a world where the speaker of the house could strike down legislation at whim.
That's called running something.
The speaker was elected to bring bills to the floor. If you disagree with what she puts or refuses to put on the floor, then vote against her in the next election.
Wow this VC is so corrupt.
How is that corrupt? At all?
She can deny any bill she wants. That means she can deny legitimate bills that she doesn't agree with.
Of course I wouldn't expect anything else from a VC run by high school kids.
What do you think happens in real Congress?
It is the duty of the Congressmen to elect a speaker who posts the bills.
You think, in real congress, the speaker can strike down any bill they want? You really need a civics lesson.
Any American citizen can propose a bill, and they cannot be punished for the content of that bill in any way.
It is also worth noting that the President, who is also elected by the Congress has the right to unilaterally strike down a bill with majority support.
And it's rare that stuff can get the 2/3.
Why do you think the Democrats sat on the floor of the House for a whole day over gun legislation? Because the only bills brought to the floor of the House are those with the support of a majority of the Republican conference.
Lmao you're proving my point. How did you ever become Speaker?
The Democrats disrupted congress by sitting on the floor. The Democrats would be banned under this bill.
The Constitution gives the president the power of veto, not the Speaker.
No I'm not.
What prompted the Democratic sit in? A refusal to bring the gun issue to the floor. That's my point.
And also- the speaker has the power to post bills, which gives her the de fecto power to not post them.
And to answer your question, I became speaker by getting the most votes.
I agree with you spicysteve and I think what you're proposing is a better solution than the bill that has been proposed. Although it would make the VC speaker a little more partisan rather than just a caretaker, I'd rather do that than pass this bill.
While I hate this legislation, I think it needs to be passed. We should have no unreasonable limits on free speech, however the recent buzz that started with resolutions condemning candidates has gotten out of hand. There have been too many troll bills passed. This legislation is unconstitutional, but we need it.
Is not just that legislation, look on the docket and recent proposals by @corino not to mention the posting legislation under other people's names. We need to stop the trolls
Jenna, please explain to me how you're going to figure out who the troll is when they're using other people's names.
Your bill is a joke. Just drop it.
If this were passed, it would've prohibited every bill I've seen posted in the past two weeks (including this one itself), haha.
This is troll legislation.
I marvel that this body of legislatures is so concerned with stopping nonexistent trolls. Our legislative docket is constantly running dry. If you want a free exchange of ideas stop trying to take ideas you disagree with off the docket.
Couldn't agree more. This is nothing but immaturity from some of our younger members.
Lol and that's coming from you two. I am way more mature than you guys, at least when it comes to the VC.
Younger members Hahaha okay pal.
You're not showing it with this legislation Southern.
How is this immature? It's a legitimate concern facing the VC.
It's really not a legitimate concern. These "trolls" don't exist. The current defenses we have adequately defend against trolls. Jenna alone stopped a bill that was posted by a troll who was impersonating another user. She didn't need a bill. Just good investigative work. Any bill in regards to this subject is a clear violation of the constitution.
If you have a troll problem, tell the SoH staff.
Oh, and it's immature because you high school children are dragging on this non-existent argument just because I posted some polls in protest of Zia's poll. There was no trolling that ever happened.
to clarify that toll bill was posted by me, by mistake and a formal apology was issued.
I wouldn't even call your bill a troll bill. I think the speaker's grammar is a legitimate issue. Sure, you posted it in a comical way, but the point of your bill was clear. The Speaker should be keen on grammar and appearance of the VC.
These people seem to have no ability to differentiate between a sense of humor and trolling.
Impersonation another user is more than trolling. That is something I will deal with and without mercy and whether you like it or not will result in a ban. However posting nonsense legislation shouldn't be ban worthy for a first offense. It is a huge problem recently though. It's not just me who's pissed about it. @Southernlaw @collinmatthew @political @Ethan587 @FATSHADOW we and many others are tired of it! Either I don't do my job and don't post all legislation, or we get legislation. If we don't get legislation you can bet your ass I'll be refusing to post ALOT of legislation, so if you think this is about suppressing legislation we don't agree with oh boy you ain't seen nothing yet.
High school children? Bitch I'm turning 25 in about a week
"you can bet your ass I'll be refusing to post ALOT of legislation, so if you think this is about suppressing legislation we don't agree with oh boy you ain't seen nothing yet."
Keep it up with the self incrimination. Just more ammo for the impeachment.
Please explain how you're going to investigate these impersonations, Detective.
We don't need to go to soh about a VC problem. We can police ourselfs. That might mean banning you and others members from VC pretty fucking soon.
Usually what happens is the person being impersonated says in the comments of the bill "wtf I didn't post this!"
Carcano- too bad the 5th Amendment is gonna get in the way of the "self-incrimination." And you told me I don't follow the Constitution... You just pick and choose which parts of it you agree with. Apparently the 5th isn't one of those parts. It's a real bitch isn't it? I may be a "high school child" but at least I know my Bill of Rights.
It also helps that the official docket is a ms office document that tracks changes.
Southern, wtf are you saying? She just self incriminated herself. She waived her right to remain silent by not remaining silent.
Jenna, you're seriously threatening to ban someone who didn't violate any rules? You are seriously not fit for your position.
I don't give a fuck. Impersonation of another member WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL OF A MEMBER!
That's all fine and dandy but you can't enforce it, and it has nothing to do with this bill.
I don't support impersonating members, but I am very much aware of the fact that there should be a process used if we are going to ban members. One person should not hold the sole power because it can easily be abused.
I never impersonated anyone either.
I think Jenna was referring to Corino. I still don't know what you did Car.
It's similar to "driving while black."
"Commenting while Carcano"
Why? You supported my previous legislation
Someone just doesn't want to support a bill a conservative wrote😉jk
He probably respects the constitution.
I have to vote nay on this. Three cosponsors is too little. But a few tweaks and I may be OK with it,
Increasing cosponsors to six, maybe.
Mind telling me what cosponsors as to do with the content of the bill?
Make sure the suit is well based. But we could increase the number of SCOTUS justices that have to agree to the objection, that would be fine for me.
Oh, to hell with it. The amendment would be nice, but I'll vote aye anyway.
senate is referring to the number of accusers as denotes in Section 2.2 rather than the number of cosponsors for the bill itself.
Freedom of speech violation. Nay.
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to troll bills. Just like you can be escorted out of a sports game for being too rambunctious.
Or arrested for screaming fire, this disrupting normal activity.
A troll bill is not a filibuster
?? Do you even know what filibustering is?
A filibuster disrupts normal operations of congress. Isn't that what you define trolling as?
Southern, I thought you were a constitutional conservative. I guess I was wrong. Punishing people for political speech is heavily unconstitutional. There is no instance in American history where an American citizen has been banned from proposing legislation simply because the congress didn't like what was included in that legislation.
By your rules, Ted Cruz would be suspended because he filibustered for 21 hours and disrupted the congressional process. He wasted the time of the American people, and time = tax dollars. Nice law.
You are free to filibuster in the form of a poll by requesting the Speaker post a poll on your behalf and giving you the floor.
You can filibuster all day if you want.
It is separate from proposed legislation.
Filibuster this legislation if it means that much to you.
Use it to convince others.
I was listing Filibuster as a real world example of congressional "trolling" in a way that disrupts congressional proceedings. It's really not that hard to see the parallels.
This bill prohibits legislative disruptions. Not filibusters.
A filibuster is a legislative disruption. That's what I'm trying to get through your thick skull.
The way a filibuster works on VC is diff4emt than in the real world jackass
We follow the real world constitution.
Wrong. We EMULATE it. We have our own set rules and procedures aswell
Have you read the VC constitution?
The problem is that SCOTUS has already struck down a similar troll prevention legislation. I don't see how this is much different.
It's more specific and gives more opportunities for the ruling to be overturned and favors the defendant more than the other bill. It's much needed.
If I remember correctly, some of the justices said the last bill violated the first amendment. Will this bill address that issue differently?
It does a better job of protecting the 1st Amendment by making it harder to convict the defendant and ensuring that it is truly only troll authors that get convicted, not just authors that propose unfavorable bills.
So let's use an example:
Congress passes a law where conservatives can be arrested for being against gay marriage. It's constitutional though because it's very hard to convict.
This isn't restriction of your 1st Amendment rights. You can be arrested for screaming fire and creating chaos- troll bills can be considered a breach of the social contract.
That speech puts people's lives in danger. Stop using that as an excuse to violate the constitution.
Speech that simply disrupts the political process is protected. In the case of my "troll bills" about Hillary and Bernie, where it carried a message, the speech is known as protest.
Nay, there's some specifics left out, and I don't want this further applying to comments.
Its even more specific that the Anti-Troll Act.
And it clearly is only for bills, it dies not extend to comments at all.
My point was that this may further lead into anti troll comment bills, which I can see going out of hand.
Come on now lufty, be real with me. No one (except maybe tom) has a problem with what people comment. However posting troll legislation pisses everyone off, wastes our time and ruins the VC. As speaker I see it only fair to post ALL proposed legislation, because of that users have chosen to abuse the system. It's either this or I stop posting all legislation, which very well could mean your next piece of legislation isn't posted, so to prevent that cluster fuck and to prevent the speaker from having too much power this bill is nescicary to prevent trolls, and maintain checks and balances.
The slippery slope is only a fallacy when no evidence is presented, however, judging that one form of free speech is censored, and can be assumed that further legislation may be in place to further expand on censoring "obscene speech". I simply will not support this bill, given it does have noble intentions, it may serve as a form of censorship later. You as speaker made an obligation to post those bills, I know many of the left don't understand this concept, but when you have a job, you're supposed to do it.
Have I or have I not been doing my job?
You have, and that's I said in earlier polls you've been doing great work as speaker so far.
And don't you think it's complete bullshit that people are allowed to abuse the system? It's either I have the right to deny any legislation I wish (which is too much power) or we have this proposed system that has checks and balances.
Come on Luft, trust me. My checks and balances creation skills are Thomas Jefferson level.
Jenna, how about neither of those. How about you do the job you were elected to do and post every poll, no matter what. Let the congress decide whether or not it's a useful bill.
Your position is that of a manager, not a leader. You simply work the account. You don't make decisions.
Well if this fails in going to follow @collinmatthew 's advice and not posting everything that is proposed. Atleast until an agree is made to finally stop trolls.
Well that would be an abuse of your position so tread softly.
Well you asked for Mr. Troll
I hope to see you at the impeachment trial.
Don't tread on me.
Bill Summary: This bill will put a stop, once and for all to trolling and nonsensical bills in the VC. It also established rules for removall from VC.
VC Website: tinyurl.com/officialVC
Whereas on the eighth day of August in the year 2016, the Speaker of this Congress posted a bill proposed by a member of this Congress titled “Nazi Elections”, with a summary that reads as follows: Grammar Nazi test for office.
Whereas on the twenty-first day of July in the year 2016, the Speaker of this Congress posted a bill proposed by a member of this Congress titled “A Resolution Condemning the Rhetoric of Bernie Sanders”, with a summary that reads as follows: Bernie Sanders is a communist sympathizer who attempted to inspire class warfare within the United States and implement socialism as a start on the road to communism. His rhetoric must be condemned by the Congress of this free capitalist nation.
Whereas on the nineteenth day of July in the year 2016, the Speaker of this Congress posted a bill proposed by a member of this Congress titled “A Concurrent Resolution Condemning the Rhetoric of Donald Trump”, with a summary that reads as follows: This is a concurrent resolution condemning the rhetoric of Donald Trump. ….If passed it shall express the opinion of the Congress. It will express that the conduct of Donald Drumpf as inappropriate conduct.
Whereas these three bills and others in the past have disrupted the proper function of this Congress by taking advantage of the Speaker’s duty to post all bills in the legislation docket by proposing “troll bills” and “nonsensical legislation” in order to make mockery of another user or to aggravate the members of this Congress.
BE IT ENACTED BY THIS CONGRESS:
1.1 Troll legislation and nonsensical legislation are defined as follows:
Troll legislation- a purposefully offensive or antagonistic VirtualCongress bill with the intention of disrupting the natural exchange of ideas, or eliciting an angry/annoyed response from the members of this Congress Nonsensical legislation- legislation found to be overwhelmingly foolish, senseless, fatuous, or absurd, with no real intention to get anything done
2.1 If a member believes that a piece of legislation may be defined as troll legislation or nonsensical legislation, he/she must post a comment in the comments section of that bill, tagging the Speaker and the author of the bill, plus any sponsors. Three additional members must reply to the original post stating that they agree that the legislation is either troll legislation or nonsensical legislation.
2.2 If the three additional members state that they agree, the Speaker shall post a poll announcing that the legislation has been challenged as being either troll legislation or nonsensical legislation. The answer choices shall be “Yea” and “Nay”; Yea to confirm the challenge, and Nay to deny it.
2.3 If the majority of the Congress votes “Yea”, the challenge shall be brought to the Supreme Court for a ruling on whether or not the legislation truly is troll legislation or nonsensical legislation.
2.4 If the Supreme Court votes that the legislation is indeed troll or nonsensic
2.5 The appeals vote shall be posted by the Speaker with the options “Yea” and “Nay”, Yea to override the Supreme Court ruling that it is troll or nonsensical, Nay to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling. To win the appeal, a vote of two-thirds vote of Yea must be reached.
3.1 1st Conviction- 1 month legislative rights ban
2nd Conviction- 3 month legislative rights ban
3rd Conviction- 6 month legislative rights ban
4th Conviction- Ban from the VirtualCongress
3.2 If convicted, the author of the bill may appeal the punishments for the 3rd and 4th conviction, which will be taken to the Supreme Court.
3.3 These punishments shall be carried out by the Speaker. Convictions 1-3 shall be carried out by not posting any of the bills that the author proposes during that time frame. Conviction 4 shall be carried out by blocking the user from the VirtualCongress account, not allowing the user to vote in elections, and not posting any legislation that the user proposes.
POINT OF ORDER: Section II.2.4 is incomplete as printed here, and must be posted in its complete form before we can legitimately vote on this bill. I recommend that the bill be reposted correctly, and votes cast on the incomplete bill be invalidated.