Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: August 5475
Next month in: 00:14:52
Server time: 23:45:07, April 26, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): Klexi | ShadowSneak | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: LITP Bill no. 606

Details

Submitted by[?]: Likaton Coalition of the Willing

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: February 2366

Description[?]:

As part of our manifesto commitment, we present the following Bill.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date01:34:25, February 26, 2007 CET
FromAM Populist Social Democrats
ToDebating the LITP Bill no. 606
MessageThere are certain provisions of this bill that would lead to our voting against it as a whole regardless, but portions we might support, including some that we would like further explanations of the reasons for.

A key one we for which we would like explanation is Article 9. What restrictions on where legal weapons may be carried does the LITP think are desirable? We would certainly want to prohibit many legal weapons in schools, for instance; but as the government owns public schools the government can do so, as the property owner. We doubt that our current charter schools or any private schools that may someday become legal again-- despite our hopes they won't-- would have similar restrictions.

We can think of other places (the gallery overlooking the Convocation, for example) where it is reasonable to prohibit nearly all weapons, but every example we can think of is either a case where the government would own the land or the property owner would see fit to ban weapons.

Article 3 we would support if the qualifying exam only applied to immigrants and we also had a clause that allowed all legal immigrants to be nationals-- but to gain citizenship, they would have to pass the exam. We do not wish to deprive those born to Likatonians, but grow up disadvantaged and ignorant, of citizenship rights. We feel that the ideal is to have immigration limited by quotas based on qualifications (as current law states), with allowances for refugees escaping extreme conditions (as current law states), with nationality granted to all who immigrate legally on those conditions but a test required for such immigrants to gain citizenship rights.

We may propose a bill to deal with those two provisions.

We are open to discussion about Article 8, whether current law is truly needed to protect us from terrorism or not. If not, we would like to change it in the interest of promoting tourism.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 51

no
      

Total Seats: 122

abstain
 

Total Seats: 26


Random fact: Players have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to be accurate when communicating the rules to other players. Any player who manipulatively misleads another player about the rules will be subject to sanction.

Random quote: "Capitalism is the only system that can make freedom, individuality, and the pursuit of values possible in practice." - Ayn Rand

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 82