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: Separation of Powers
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Reform Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: February 2410
Description[?]:
| This nation needs checks and balances, therefore we suggest that the Head of State and Head of Government be made into seperate, but equally important, positions. Here is our proposal for the duties of the Head of State: *to collect taxes and customs duties and to use the money to pay the salaries of government employees and other government expenditure; *to assure the internal and external security of the state (ie, maintaining the armed forces and federal police) *regulation of the labor force (e.g. by enforcing labor laws) *regulation of agriculture *regulation of transportation *regulation of energy provision *regulation of housing and construction (e.g. by issuing building permits) *regulation of commerce in general (e.g. by enforcing minimum standards, and notably by issuing a currency) *to be part of diplomatic missions (these responsibilities may be passed on to the foreign ministry, however) *these powers may be delegated down to the cabinet Our Head of Government would be the largest political party in the legislature, and hold the powers of a Prime Minister -- heading the legislature and (ideally) the cabinet as well. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Structure of the executive branch.
Old value:: The Head of State is also Head of Government.
Current: The Head of State is also Head of Government.
Proposed: The Head of State and Head of Government are two separate officials.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:05:48, May 21, 2007 CET | From |  Moderate Libertarian Party (NoCoalition) | To | Debating the Separation of Powers |
| Message | Define their roles/powers as separate officials. |
| Date | 12:46:05, May 21, 2007 CET | From | Social Reform Party | To | Debating the Separation of Powers |
| Message | Done. |
| Date | 02:52:40, May 22, 2007 CET | From | Industrialist Party of Aloria | To | Debating the Separation of Powers |
| Message | We have a perfectly good system now. It works. Don't fix it if it's not broken. |
| Date | 03:03:27, May 22, 2007 CET | From | Social Reform Party | To | Debating the Separation of Powers |
| Message | It is broken, however. It gives unnaturally large powers to the exectutive branch, undermines our checks and balances, and gives far too much control to a single party. That single party happens to be the Constitution Party, therefore, we can only assume you do not support these actions on the principle that you do not want to give up power. The SRP calls for an end fo the Constitution Party's corrupt and tyrannical rule. Do not let Democracy be underminded -- Seperate the powers of the government! |
| Date | 15:05:20, May 22, 2007 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Separation of Powers |
| Message | We would appeal for the delegation of some powers to the Ministers to further reduce the Supreme Governor's powers. We also feel failure to do this would reduce the Cabinet's importance within the Alorian system of governance. |
| Date | 16:42:36, May 22, 2007 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Separation of Powers |
| Message | We would ask that the bill title be amended to read "Separation of Powers" to correct the lexicographical error. |
| Date | 04:02:49, May 23, 2007 CET | From | Moderate Libertarian Party (NoCoalition) | To | Debating the Separation of Powers |
| Message | Surely a no vote. |
| Date | 04:11:42, May 24, 2007 CET | From | Fair Capitalism Party | To | Debating the Separation of Powers |
| Message | We would implore the MLP to reverse their current view on this bill: to keep all these powers within a single individual is surely far worse than sharing it around, avoiding a near tyrannous rule by a particularly zealous SG. Will you continue to sacrifice your principles in such a deplorable manner, or decide to show a shred of integrity in your 'yes' vote? |
| Date | 20:15:28, May 24, 2007 CET | From | Industrialist Party of Aloria | To | Debating the Separation of Powers |
| Message | Ok, so they separate these powers, keep most of them to one person and throw a few powers to another (a.k.a. Prime Minister). Seriously, this helps little. If you want Separation actually separate it! Besides it isn't broken, it's just not optimal in your opinion. |
| Date | 12:37:23, May 25, 2007 CET | From | Social Reform Party | To | Debating the Separation of Powers |
| Message | This would keep the executive powers in the executive branch, and the legislative powers in the legislative branch. By mixing them, democracy itself is comprimised. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 316 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 119 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 165 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "In politics, madame, you need two things: friends, but above all an enemy." - Brian Mulroney |