Legislation out of Federal Jurisdiction

[tk447]

Hello,

I was looking through the Berkeley bills and although I am not competing in Congress this time, I am wondering how you would deal with the bills that want the following:

" RESOLVED, By the Student Congress here assembled that the African Union Mission (AMISOM) in Somalia be substantially expanded to include the use of military troops from additional, non-African nations;"

" RESOLVED, By the Student Congress here assembled that the European Union prohibit banks within the continent from enacting policies of secrecy and privacy that result in
government agents being denied access to account information."

" RESOLVED, By the Student Congress here assembled that the United Nations send a marine peacekeeping force to stop all whaling in the seas between Japan and New Zealand;"



These bills all involve actions that aren't taken by the Senate. For the most part, they occur literally in another country. Is it smart in such instances to point out that such actions occur outside of our jurisdiction, or do we debate them straight-up as if we were in control of the affairs at hand? I understand the sense in doing the former, but it seems to compromise one's persuasiveness in round compared to speakers who make analytical arguments on topic. And the latter choice would endanger a speaker if judges are persuaded by the "outside of jurisdiction" argument.

Suggestions?

[BenConstine]

I'd guess that they just wouldn't make it onto the docket, or be very low on the docket if they get in. I certainly wouldn't want to debate any of those bills.

[Maxwell]

I'll tell you how I handle it. i get up and give a darn good speech about how illegal they are, and compel the chamber to vote in negation simply because we literally CANNOT take the action outlined within.

[ummmmmm12]

I don't know why I didn't notice this thread until now, but you could just make an ammendment to change it with the same purpose, for instance with your examples change them to the following or something similar:
" RESOLVED, By the Student Congress here assembled that the US supports African Union Mission (AMISOM) in Somalia expansion to include the use of military troops from additional, non-African nations;"
" RESOLVED, By the Student Congress here assembled that the US urges the European Union to prohibit banks within the continent from enacting policies of secrecy and privacy that result in
government agents being denied access to account information."
" RESOLVED, By the Student Congress here assembled that the US encourages United Nations send a marine peacekeeping force to stop all whaling in the seas between Japan and New Zealand;"

***But also note that sometimes people get mad at ammendments because they simply do not like them in general, some POs don't know how to handle them (although they should), they were relying on the part you changed as a main point in their speech, or they simply take too much time (though hopefully not if you have a good PO). But, at the same time some judges look highly upon such ammendments.

[JjulianSr]

I don't know why I didn't notice this thread until now, but you could just make an ammendment to change it with the same purpose, for instance with your examples change them to the following or something similar:
" RESOLVED, By the Student Congress here assembled that the US supports African Union Mission (AMISOM) in Somalia expansion to include the use of military troops from additional, non-African nations;"
" RESOLVED, By the Student Congress here assembled that the US urges the European Union to prohibit banks within the continent from enacting policies of secrecy and privacy that result in
government agents being denied access to account information."
" RESOLVED, By the Student Congress here assembled that the US encourages United Nations send a marine peacekeeping force to stop all whaling in the seas between Japan and New Zealand;"

***But also note that sometimes people get mad at ammendments because they simply do not like them in general, some POs don't know how to handle them (although they should), they were relying on the part you changed as a main point in their speech, or they simply take too much time (though hopefully not if you have a good PO). But, at the same time some judges look highly upon such ammendments.

Some Parlis might recommend the Amendments you suggest as dilatory because they change the intent of the legislation. I personally wouldn't rule that way, but I know others who might.

By the way, excellent point on Amendments. They are not evil. When used properly they can inspire debate where there was none, or inspire new debate when the floor debate has stalled.

[ummmmmm12]

Some Parlis might recommend the Amendments you suggest as dilatory because they change the intent of the legislation. I personally wouldn't rule that way, but I know others who might.

By the way, excellent point on Amendments. They are not evil. When used properly they can inspire debate where there was none, or inspire new debate when the floor debate has stalled.

I see what ur saying. In my area we dont usually make any amendments. instead we either a.) debate the legislation's intent or b.) simply put it lower on the agenda. (more often b.)