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: Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371
Details
Submitted by[?]: Covenanters (IA)
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2371
Description[?]:
| Retaining the constitutional monarchy but moving towards a presidential style Viceroy. To counter any accusations of republicanism I have included measures to strengthen the Emperor's influence elsewhere. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Structure of the executive branch.
Old value:: The Head of State is hereditary and symbolic; the Head of Government chairs the cabinet.
Current: The Head of State is hereditary and symbolic; the Head of Government chairs the cabinet.
Proposed: The Head of State is also Head of Government.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The title of the head of government, who chairs the cabinet.
Old value:: Imperial Viceroy
Current: Prime Minister
Proposed: Holy Luthori Emperor's Viceroy
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The appointment of mayors.
Old value:: Citizens elect their mayor directly in a local election.
Current: Citizens elect their mayor directly in a local election.
Proposed: The Head of State oversees the appointment of all mayors.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The national motto.
Old value:: In hoc signo vinces
Current: In hoc signo vinces (In this sign you will conquer)
Proposed: In hoc signo vinces (Personal motto of HM The Holy Luthori Emperor)
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:49:34, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Justicial Party - Solidarity | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | The CJP will not be supporting this. |
| Date | 14:50:34, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Would the CJP care to give their reasons? After all, this is still at the debate stage. |
| Date | 15:18:55, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Imperium et Libertas Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | We would broadly support this, but we have strong reservations about two articles. We're against Article 4. We understand your motives. However, we believe that this change would actually give the impression that politicans have ecclesiastical authority when this is not the case. We actually believe it would damage the Church by obfuscating the difference between ordained clergy and the layman. We are unconvinced on Article 6, however we are open to argument. Our worry is that this would give the state undue influence in theological matters. |
| Date | 15:28:28, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | If our honourable friend would consider the possibilities the state does have to interfere in theological matters - such as appointing leaders and ministers - which are not proposed here, he should realise that simply paying the bill dos not equate to influence. The salaries of many ministers and the upkeep of many churches and chapels are already borne by the state - in the chaplaincy of the Armed Forces of the Crown, for example - without any undue influence. Army chaplains take their theological leadership from their respective denominational leaders, just as would be the case if this constitution were passed for civilian clergymen. |
| Date | 15:31:43, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Imperium et Libertas Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Oh, certainly. Our worry is more that this would give an inroad to undue influence from parties less ethical than yourselves. We appreciate that isn't your aim. But we could see a situation when a governing party threatens to lower the wages of a Church unless it gives support to government policy. We certainly believe that the role of the Second Estate is complementary to that of the First Estate in regards to good governence. We simply feel that it is in the interests of both to keep a clear distinction between the two. |
| Date | 15:40:55, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Articles IV and VI removed. We love to hear what our honourable friends from the CJP think about this constitution as it now stands. |
| Date | 15:45:29, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Imperium et Libertas Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Thank you, we'll happily support this when its put to the vote now. |
| Date | 22:57:14, March 05, 2007 CET | From | Falanges Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | We will happily vote yes on this, ally. |
| Date | 19:39:11, March 06, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Justicial Party - Solidarity | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Our reasons for opposition: we do not see the need to change the national capital or the title of the head of government. Also, the new national motto sounds quasi-fascist, and the current one is fine. Sorry. |
| Date | 21:45:07, March 06, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | This should go back to debate after the election so we can discuss amendments now. We can remove the return to our traditional imperial capital if necessary (God knows how we ended up with Liore as our capital - but for some reason many of the new parties seem keen to keep it there?) and we can drop the new motto. However, the new title goes hand in hand with Article II. If we were to adopt a single elected official without changing the title to something making it clear that the Emperor is still head of state then it would appear like a republican revolution, and would probably lead to my party's ejection from the IML. |
| Date | 01:03:12, March 07, 2007 CET | From | Imperium et Libertas Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Let's wait and see how the die falls after the next election... |
| Date | 21:18:39, March 07, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | I would like us to edit the motto in some way to reflect that we are still a monarchy if we go for the elected head of government. I believe this can be done by following the motto with a note to the effect of 'HM Emperor William III's personal motto'. We could even append this to the existing motto. Any thoughts? |
| Date | 21:23:36, March 07, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | I've added an article to this effect. |
| Date | 01:18:59, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Imperium et Libertas Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | While we wouldn't oppose the bill on these grounds, our view is that a motto in Latin has more gravitas. |
| Date | 08:49:48, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | But English is God's language - The Bible is written in English! Would our honourable friends in the ILP prefer the current motto, with the suffix that it is the Emperor's motto (similar to how 'Dieu et mon droit' is the personal motto of a certain other monarch)? |
| Date | 13:15:48, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | I've slimmed down on the non-constitutional articles. Does this proposed constitution now have any support? |
| Date | 13:48:52, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Justicial Party - Solidarity | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Latin is the religious language of Catholics, so we are fine with the present motto. |
| Date | 14:01:26, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | If our honourable friends in the CJP would care to check article IV, we have retained the current Latin motto with a suffix that it is the Emperor's motto (purely to show we are still an Empire if this passes and game mechanics suggest we may have an elected head of state). |
| Date | 14:14:58, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Justicial Party - Solidarity | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Yes, we know, we were just making a general statement. |
| Date | 14:18:38, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | More importantly, do our honourable friends in the CJP support this constitution as it now stands? |
| Date | 14:24:27, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Justicial Party - Solidarity | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | The current state of affairs seems alright to us; we are not sure if we would accept this bill. |
| Date | 14:28:52, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | OOC: Having elections for the Head of Government just adds another level of interest to the game. We could make it so nly the Viceroy's party can propose cabinets to ensure it isn't just a figurehead position. |
| Date | 14:31:50, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Catholic Justicial Party - Solidarity | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | OOC: Alright, that sounds good. Elections for Head of Gov't would spice things up a bit. |
| Date | 15:40:11, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Falanges Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Well yes, there is a problem: in this system there is no clear vision of who proposes the government coalitions, note that we are 100 percent against the head of state proposing governments. Any party should be able to propose a cabinet. So isin't the best solution to make a semi-presidential system; a president, a head of gov proposed by any of the parties? Sorry, i realized this thing now. |
| Date | 15:44:21, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Are you saying you want to keep it so that the Viceroy continues to be decided in a cabinet proposal, rather than elected by the people? |
| Date | 16:27:37, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Imperium et Libertas Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Well, we are Catholics old boy. But that's not really our motivation for it. It's more a case of Latin being the language of the educated gentleman. |
| Date | 16:47:37, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Falanges Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | what i mean is having an elected president, plus a prime minister who comes after a proposal of any party to form a coalition that detains the majority in the imperial council. |
| Date | 16:51:24, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | An elected President? Proposing such a thing would be treason! |
| Date | 22:06:52, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Falanges Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | So how the head of state and head of gov at the same time would be elected, is it hereditary or like the head of gov now (proposed by a party then voted on by the council)? |
| Date | 23:20:11, March 08, 2007 CET | From | Falanges Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Maybe i may have not been clear. There are 3 kinds of systems in the political system: The presidential system: head of state and at the same time head of gov, elected by people. The semi presidential system: a head of state elected by people, and a head of gov arriving by a cabinet coaltion (like the viceroy today) The parliamentary system: a hereditary head of state with symbolic figure, and a head of gov with the real power, and this is our case today. So in your proposal, what kind of system do you want to adopt, because there are only 3. |
| Date | 08:20:10, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | We are proposng the presidential system. Although the game will call the elected official the head of state as well as head of government we have taken measures, such as the Viceroy's title and motto to ensure it is clear that we are still a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. This should mean everyone gets what they want: republicans get a leader elected directly by the people, loyalists get keep the Emperor through constitutionally set titles and mottos (that are just as difficult to change as the political system itself). I hope this convinces our honourable friends in the CDP to vote in favour. |
| Date | 11:36:59, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Falanges Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Yes, ok i don't really have a problem by adopting a presidential system, and this is what i've meant when speaking about an elected president. So by the way, why am i a traitor. |
| Date | 12:26:53, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | You're no traitor for supporting this constitution as it stands, any more than the rest of us. Suggesting that we replace HM The Holy Luthori Emperor with a grubby politician, however, would be treachery and - as HM The Holy Luthori Emperor is Supreme Head of the Church of Luthori in Terra, under Jesus Christ - heresy (we could probably throw a charge of witchcraft in as well and push for a public burning). |
| Date | 20:27:38, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Falanges Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | OK, but i mean in the presidential system here, the head of state won't be elected? I may be a bit confused here. |
| Date | 20:33:45, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | OOC: As far as the game mechanics are concerned the head of state is also the head of government and is an elected official in a presidential system of government. However, by adjusting the head's title and the motto we are roleplaying that HM The Holy Luthori Emperor is still head of state, and the elected Viceroy merely his representative. Does this explanation make sense? |
| Date | 00:22:34, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Falanges Party | To | Debating the Holy Imperial Constitution of 2371 |
| Message | Absolutely, so we don't have any problem as long as we are preserving the political democratical process, and sorry for my slow understanding ;) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 136 | |||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 19 |
| Random fact: Moderation reserves the discretion to declare RP laws invalid if the players supporting them are doing so in an excessively confrontational way. |
| Random quote: "War crimes is such a lilliputian term for the atrocities committed by the Yeudish state." - Katrine Lorenzen, former Kazulian diplomat |