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: Police-Military Separations Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Christian Royalist Party
Status[?]: passed
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: June 2419
Description[?]:
| It's usually bad policy to allow the military to police a society, creates a certain level of fear in the population and a high certainty of coups and what not. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on the separation of the police and the military.
Old value:: A civilian police force is in place, backed up by the military.
Current: A civilian police force is in place and the military may be called in to help in serious emergencies.
Proposed: A civilian police force is in place and the military may be called in to help in serious emergencies.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:55:50, June 24, 2007 CET | From | Secular Party | To | Debating the Police-Military Separations Act |
| Message | OOC: Just so you know, there are ways to make the proposals outside of the description box. Simply go down to the bottom of the bill you created, and then click the "here" sign below where it says something to effect of "create a proposal." |
| Date | 23:08:52, June 24, 2007 CET | From | Christian Royalist Party | To | Debating the Police-Military Separations Act |
| Message | I think I have the hang of this now, but is it impossible to make specifically regulated laws or does it always have to be what the computer allows? |
| Date | 23:13:38, June 24, 2007 CET | From | Secular Party | To | Debating the Police-Military Separations Act |
| Message | OOC: It always has to be what the computer allows. Otherwise, it would very difficult for the computer to process how the suggested article should impact your visibility to the electorate. Oh, and by the way, in case you were wondering why I put "OOC" in some of my posts here, that's because it stands for "out of character," and it's used for when you're no longer role-playing as your party. IC: We support this bill. |
| Date | 23:28:18, June 24, 2007 CET | From | Luthori Christian Women's Association | To | Debating the Police-Military Separations Act |
| Message | My party will support this. The police and military use different specialisms. Belinda Braithwaite (Leader of the LCWA) |
| Date | 01:26:53, June 25, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Police-Military Separations Act |
| Message | We would rather se a completely disarmed police force with the army remaining in general reserve to handle firearms incidents. Firearms belong in the army, not the civilian police service. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 47 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 30 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 6 |
| Random fact: Did you know you can change the official name of your nation? All you need to do is draw up a new name that is in accordance with the Nation Renaming Guide, pass a bill proposing the name change with a two-thirds majority and then post a request to Moderation on the "Renaming Requests" thread. You can change city and region names in this way too. |
| Random quote: "A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless." - Antonin Scalia |