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: Eminent Domain Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Independent Right
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: September 2377
Description[?]:
| The government should ideally have a freer hand at the development of the nation. Individuals Rights are of course something that should be respected, but they should not be allowed to interfere in the furtherance of the Greater Good. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works and for corporate use.
Proposed: The government may seize private property for vital government works and for corporate use.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Eminent domain compensation (if eminent domain is legal).
Old value:: A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal.
Current: The government does not compensate victims of eminent domain.
Proposed: The government determines compensation for victims of eminent domain.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:11:50, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Independent Right | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Reform |
| Message | And we'll note that the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights once again stands in the way of more appropriate reform. Bah! |
| Date | 01:29:05, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Reform |
| Message | We can't support this. Article 2 is amoral. With that system, we can buy their house for a dollar and an empty beer can. This is a violation of human rights. We applaud the UDHR for stopping "more appropriate reform." |
| Date | 01:31:48, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Social Democrats | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Reform |
| Message | We vehemently support the UDHR, referring to our debate on the subject. We cannot allow corporations seize property and at the same time the biased party being the arbiter. We feel this as collectivisation from the communist era. It is unacceptable. |
| Date | 06:48:46, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Left Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Reform |
| Message | We feel that the current policies are preferable to the proposed. |
| Date | 11:48:45, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Greenpeace Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Reform |
| Message | We are disagree. |
| Date | 16:03:30, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Reform |
| Message | Unfortunately the TCP cannot support this bill proposed by a party we are usually quite closely alligned with. The TCP believes in the individual's fundamental right to private propety, and the rights to determine everything in regards to that property that he owns, and also in the fact that no one, not even the government, may infringe upon this right, under any circumstance whatsoever. Again, the TCP views Article 2 as being too deterministic and interventionist on the government's behalf. |
| Date | 16:27:43, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Independent Right | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Reform |
| Message | Well, it looks like we're alone on this one. =p |
| Date | 21:24:30, March 20, 2007 CET | From | S.C.A.F.R. | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Reform |
| Message | disagree. |
| Date | 22:07:55, March 20, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Reform |
| Message | Of course, the communists are the ones that support this. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 161 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 467 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 22 |
| Random fact: Never use the same password as a friend. If two or more active accounts use the same password, they will be inactivated. |
| Random quote: "The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." - George Washington |