Senate (Political Simulation Game)

The United States Senate is one of the two bicameral chambers of the United States Congress, the other being the House of Representatives. First convened in 1789, the composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Each state is represented by two senators, regardless of population, who serve staggered six-year terms.

The Senate has several advice and consent powers not granted to the House, including consenting to treaties as a precondition to their ratification and consenting to or confirming appointments of Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, other federal executive officials, military officers, regulatory officials, ambassadors, and other federal uniformed officers, as well as trial of federal officials impeached by the House. The Senate is widely considered both a more deliberative and more prestigious body than the House of Representatives, due to its longer terms, smaller size, and statewide constituencies, which historically led to a more collegial and less partisan atmosphere.

Members

 * Senator  Joe Vogler  (I-AK)
 * Senator Angelo W. Pastore (R-CT)
 * Senator Bill McKay (D-MI)
 * Senator  David Wilson  (R-OH)
 * Senator Joseph Reynolds (D-WA)
 * Senator Nate Stevens (R-VA)
 * Senator Harold Windsor (D-NY)

Hopper
The Hopper is where all proposed bills are stored. To create a bill, please create a page with the full text of that bill in the first main heading. The second heading should be titled action. The page should also use Template:Infobox U.S. Legislation.

Introduced Bills

 * Anti-Censorship Bill, by Senator David Wilson (R-OH)
 * Automatic Embargoes Bill, by Senator Angelo Pastore (R-CT)
 * Stevens-Pastore Act, by Senator Nate Stevens (R-VA) and Senator Angelo Pastore (R-CT)

Automatic Embargoes Bill
President Pro Tempore: The Senate will come to order to debate the Automatic Embargoes Bill of 1979. First, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Pastore, will be given the floor, followed by a call for co-sponsors, and then open debate.

Senator Pastore (R-CT): My fellow senators, this bill has extraordinary powers, and should only be used in extraordinary times. I myself believe such time has come. When we are to face an ever going war against the atheist, violent and intolerable threat that is communism, we cannot be held by formalities. I do understand that some terms of this bill may seem not democratic enough, but I urge you all to consider the toll of losing this war, and losing all of our liberties so hardly conquered. I believe there are several actions that, although not enough for a declaration of war, are sufficient to declare one nation unfriendly, and even an enemy, of ours. For example, when an ambassador is killed by extremists, I think of it as a violent action not against the person of the ambassador,  but for whom he represents, the United States and its people. Punishment is rightfully required for such action, but the longer taken to act, the less powerful the punishment will be. The aim of this bill is to exactly end this time limitation, and allow quick responses to the enemies of our great nation that, in a coward act, don't have the guts to declare war. I have proposed types of such acts in this bill, but I grant some may disagree and I'm willing to withdraw those, and let a later legislation decide which ones could be included. So, for a quick response against the enemies of our nation, vote aye for this bill. Thank you for the time.

President Pro Tempore: I will now entertain debate and motions to be added by unanimous consent as a co-sponsor to this bill. In order for this bill to be voted upon, after rigorous debate, a motion for cloture must be made and seconded, followed by a 60% super majority vote of aye.

Senator Stevens (R-VA): I do not support this bill, and intend to vote against it (however, this is not a filibuster). For one thing, under this bill, refugees from embargoed nations would be unable to enter the United States. Second, I think it is unwise to default to the worst with all countries. There may be a country that we just want to embargo, but we do not need to automatically restrict immigration, make it a federal crime for a person to trade with that country, and stop arms sales for ten years afterwards. This is an unwise foreign policy move. The Cold War will not be won by stooping to the same lows as the USSR, rather by improving the United States to become better than the Soviet Union.

President Pro Tempore: Would the Gentleman from Virginia desire to amend this bill to make it more appealing? If so, he needs only specify the text he wishes to amend.

Senator Stevens (R-VA):  I will just vote it down, not amend.

Senator Windsor (D-NY): I will not support such an unthinking and crude article of legislature. US Foreign Policy should be adaptable and fluid, to match every scenario in the best way. Such a bill would only lead to rash action, and would be disastrous for the global political climate. Only a weak nation solves all of it's problems through violence and aggression without a great deal of thought. Gentleman of the Senate, we are not that nation. The United States of America is the most powerful nation in the world. We are a country that leads the rest of the free world by example. Such a bill would force suffering and poverty upon the very innocents that we pledge every year to protect in the form of NATO and the United Nations, commitments that consume vast resources and budgetary priority. I would also urge my fellow Senator's to restrain themselves, to behave as educated and politically minded diplomats. As elected individuals, the trust of the American public weighs upon our shoulders. And yet, in the very introduction of this bill, my good man Senator Pastore goes so far as to reference the political tension between ourselves and the USSR as a 'war', and speaks of attempting to win said war. Such language in this hallowed hall is intolerable; as a representative of the United States, you risk causing offence to another nation, and only worsening relations we strive to maintain and contain. One would expect more from a spokesperson of the very nation that calls for peace and restrain, even in the political climate we struggle to stay afloat in and attempt to stay the tide of. I am not afraid of conflict or war in the name of liberty. That is to say, no more afraid than any other morally obliged and civilized US Citizen should be, for fear itself is natural and the absence of doubt in the presence of conflict is inhuman. No, I merely recognize it as a last resort, the final solution so to speak. This bill promotes violence as an everyday political tool, the 'first solution', to our everyday diplomatic issues. It is not only unwise, but also extraordinarily undemocratic. This entire nation is based upon democracy, yet in front of the very assembly established to protect fair governance, you state blindly, and I quote, "It may not seem democratic enough" and then go on to justify a bill that would be an offence to our founding fathers. To punish an entire nation for the actions of independent terrorists; does that seem 'democratic enough' to you? In God we trust is our motto. We are the representatives, the stewards, of peace on Earth, not the aggressors, the provocateurs. And with that gentleman, I close my primary argument for the objection of this bill.

On a legal note, the very nature of this Bill is contradictory. In its introduction, it states that "should a nation engage itself with violent actions against the United States, an embargo against it shall be enforced, with no need to be passed over the Congress or the President.". However, it later states that "To one type of act be considered indeed violent, it must be approved as Violent Act Against the United States and its People, with a 2/3 majority of the vote on both houses and consent of the President of the United States.". It is not possible to have an automatic embargo, that first requires permission from Congress and the Executive branch of the US Government. The terms of Section 2 act in opposition to the US Constitution, and so the Bill should be regarded as unlawful. As the ex-Attorney General of New York State, I advise the Senate that such an act could be a direct breach of the 14th Amendment, that states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. None shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". As the "people of the [violent] nation" in Section 2, Subsection 4, is not defined, it is open to abuse by any authority. One could consider it to be citizens of the aggressive nation, ex-citizens, and even those merely born in the nation, or related to those who were, in contradiction to the previously mentioned Amendment. In the case of Korematsu v United States of America over Executive Order No. 34, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the USA, due to the fact that it was during wartime, and specifically stating that the legality was assured for this reason only. This proposed act assumes emergency powers akin to Executive Order No. 34, without the exclusivity of a declaration of war, the only possible legal exception for ruling against the Constitution for the safety of the greater American people. Even currently, the Supreme Court is currently undergoing proceedings to overturn the ruling of this case, and that of the similar Hirabayashi v United States on the grounds of it being unlawful.

Senator McKay (D-MI): I think Senator Windsor has summed up my thoughts as well about this piece of legislation.

Senator Vogler (I-AK): I will not support this bill. Senator Windsor has summed up a majority of my thoughts as well.

Senator Pastore (R-CT): I would like, if the President Pro Tempore and my fellow Senators allow it, defend the bill from the remarks from Senator Stevens and Senator Windsor. First of all, this bill will not, and as Senator Windsor pointed out, cannot restrain the entry of refugees, nor expell American citizens or refugees from the embargoed nations. Rather, it stops the immigration of the ones without the American citizenship that have the citizenship from a nation considered violent against the United States without refugee requirement, although in my vision if that nation is violent, all their citizens could be ellegible to refugee status. Also important, I never quoted a state of war between ourselves and the Soviet Union, which would be the honorable gentlemen be putting words on my mouth. Rather, I said communism is a threat to the values of our nation, and as such they are against the very principles we defend, and we could say both ideas, ours and the communist ones, are to be forever "in war". But Senator Windsor would call for diplomacy when that seems to have failed under President Carter. A violent revolution has taken place in Iran. The American ambassador has been killed by extremists. The Sandinistas have assumed power in Nicaragua, yet another communist nation in the Americas, and also during a democratic presidency. Although Senator Windsor seems willing to fight for our rights, his party doesn't seem to have the same wishes. It rather lets atheists and anti democratic rules to assume power across the world. I, for one, will not stand for such. And for that very reason I proposed automatic embargoes: for required actions to be taken.

I've also said that this bill would, what fellow Senator Windsor seems to have ignored from my speech, sacrificies some liberties to defend from the lack of any liberty. It proposes an extraordinary power, that should be only used in emergencies. I have not proposed violence to be used as the only diplomatic tool our nation has, but that it be known that it is indeed a diplomatic tool we do have, and must not be afraid to use, what President Carter and the democrats seems to.

On the topic of it being contraditory, I don't think so. It defines that a type of act can be considered violent. For example, if the government approves to make assassination of an ambassador as a violent act, every time a ambassador is killed, an embargo will start against the nation that commited such act. The requirement stated was the approval for a act to be considered violent. Once an act is deemed violent, no discussion will be required if such act happens. So if a nation x kills our ambassador, an embargo will start, not requiring any approval from the executive. But the government can, despite the act, withdraw the embargo, even if considered violent.

Due to the opposition to the bill itself, I'll propose to make the following changes: some modifications to clarify the confusion pointed by fellow Senator Windsor, and withdraw every violent act proposed in the law, and only make the possibility of an act to be considered violent in the future, in another future bill by any other congressmen. Also, I'll consult with the rest of the Republican party about the support of the bill, and I may myself withdraw the bill. I beg you all to really consider this bill, and the changes I've proposed. Thank you for the time.

Anti-Censorship Bill
President Pro Tempore: The Senate will come to order to debate the Anti-Censorship Bill of 1979. First, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Wilson, will be given the floor, followed by a call for co-sponsors, and then open debate. Senator Wilson (R-OH): Good morning my fellow Senators. Today, I've introduced to you a landmark bill that will change how we deal with potentially obscene content forever. A couple of years ago, the FCC received a complaint that a child had heard George Carlin's "7 Words You Can't Say on TV" routine. This content was considered to be highly offensive, leading to the decision that the FCC may regulate any content deemed potentially offensive for children. I reject this decision, and have proposed a decision of my own that will solve the problem, without sacrificing content for viewers. It is my personal belief that the head of the households, whether it be parents, grandparents, relatives, etc. be the ones who make the decisions about what they consider to be offensive content. I believe that this works, because "offensive" is a highly subjective word that doesn't mean the same thing for everyone. One person might consider gratuitous profanity offensive, while others might barely bat an eye. Point is, by giving control to the guardians, they can stop their children from seeing what they deem offensive, without affecting quality entertainment. The 1st Amendment states we have the right to freedom of speech, and this is no different. The entertainment is intact and parents are happy. Therefore, everyone is and that's why you should support the "Anti-Censorship Bill".

President Pro Tempore: I will now entertain debate and motions to be added by unanimous consent as a co-sponsor to this bill. In order for this bill to be voted upon, after rigorous debate, a motion for cloture must be made and seconded, followed by a 60% super majority vote of aye.

Senator Stevens (R-VA): I support this bill as a means to limit unnecessary government regulation and to allow all people the freedom to make their own decisions about their children and to have access to all information. I also believe that this bill protects the freedom of speech of those who are currently being censored. The freedom of speech includes the freedom to be heard, as if it did not include the freedom to be heard, it would be merely the freedom of thought. Therefore, I support this bill, and would like to be added by unanimous consent as a co-sponsor.

Senator Pastore (R-CT): I support this bill, for the expansion of liberty it proposes. What is shown in television is as just as much speech as a live conversation, and you don't see any government officials censoring conversations. If a household refuse to view a program, it should simply, by themselves, turn off the television or change the channel, not request the government, already full of tasks to fulfill, to stop the program. Just like the vote, if the majority of the people don't watch a program, the channel will change it. The use of democracy for changing problems is better than requesting an authoritarian department to act. I support this bill, and would like to be added by unanimous consent as co-sponsor.

Senator Windsor (D-NY): I will vote for this bill, to enable the freedom of the US Citizen in line with our hallowed constitution. However, I do believe the bill should be amended to prohibit pornography except via designated channels of media, and time slot guidelines for some forms of media should be adopted. These are only guidelines, but will ensure parents are confident that the content their child receives is appropriate, without restricting the rights of US citizens. Age classifications should also be put in place.

Senator McKay (D-MI): I support this bill. It allows the first amendment to be fully realized.

Senator Vogler (I-AK): I will support this bill. It's not the government's job to protect you from material you may find offensive. The passage of this bill will only make heads of households more responsible for what they are to do. It also protects the nature of the constitution, a living document that we hold ever-so dearly to our hearts. If you don't want something, simply don't get it.

Senator Wilson (R-OH): I now move for cloture.

President Pro Tempore: Motion for cloture is recognized. Senators, please vote Aye or Nay.

Senator Pastore (R-CT): I vote Aye.

Senator Stevens (R-VA):  Aye

Senator Wilson: (R-OH): Aye