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: Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law
Details
Submitted by[?]: RSDP - Democratic Front
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2101
Description[?]:
| Be it enacted, by the Federal Parliament of the Federated States of Rutania, that: (1) Federal law takes precedence over contrary State law. (2) The Federal Government ensures that the States respect federal law. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:56:21, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | I dont see any need for this since the states are only allowed to legislate on things tyhe government chooses not to... |
| Date | 23:19:35, August 22, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | This would prevent things like the Delvar question. And current legislation says nothing about the states responsibilities. |
| Date | 23:29:28, August 22, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | The Delvar "question" was caused in equal parts by badly thought out legislation and illegal militias, not by any legal ambiguity. |
| Date | 11:32:38, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | Against. Why not just get rid of Local Gopvernments whilst you're at it? |
| Date | 11:49:11, August 23, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | So you want local governments to be able to violate the law? |
| Date | 14:30:59, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | We support this sensible proposal. In times of confusion a resolution like this can help to establish the power of the Federal government where it is needed. |
| Date | 15:12:58, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | I wouldnt vote against this, Im just trying to work out what the point of it is. Local and national law doesnt cotnradict anywhere. |
| Date | 15:58:09, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | There is ample opportunity for local and national law to contradict, and it is good that the Federated Parliament sets precedent. |
| Date | 16:16:47, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | "There is ample opportunity for local and national law to contradict" Is there? Examples? |
| Date | 16:23:51, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | Against. This is a breach of rights; this effectively ensures that Local government is nothing more than a puppet of the Federal government. |
| Date | 17:42:14, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | Does the GRP believe that it is a right of local governments to contradict Federal law? I find this highly irregular. This bill is about exactly that - local government not being allowed to go against Federal law. It is quite common sense, but apparently even some Federal parties think being local means being allowed to break the law. |
| Date | 18:40:00, August 23, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | "Is there? Examples?" An important example is the Delvarian Question, when the Federal Parliament passed an Act banning the ownership of weapons unless professionally required, but the Delvarian State Government asserted in response that, since its law protects the so-called "right to bear arms", it was not required to abide by said Act. |
| Date | 20:33:36, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | And the Federal Parliament did so illegally, as we had not given a mandate to legislate on such issues. Just because the states SAY they can do something doesnt mean they actually can. |
| Date | 20:58:00, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | OOC: What I meant was, whats the point of having local government if all they are are puppets of the Federal government, as they cannot change laws? |
| Date | 21:14:36, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | "And the Federal Parliament did so illegally, as we had not given a mandate to legislate on such issues. Just because the states SAY they can do something doesnt mean they actually can." ^ I take that statement as agreement with the proposed resolution. OOC: they cannot change *Federal* laws. This principle does not contradict the local government from making any sort of law. It just assures that when the Federal government has made a law on an issue, the local government should not contradict it. This doesn't mean that the Feds have to be making laws on every issue. Indeed, the Federal government can make laws on very *few* issues but where it *does* make a law it has to be obeyed, insofar as it extends to the local government. Example 1: The Federal government bans citizens from posessing enriched uranium and using it to make crude nuclear weapons. In this case, local governments cannot make a law legalising this in their own locality. Example 2: the Federal government sets up a programme for public transport. In this case, the Federal government is doing something, but it is not "in the way" of the local government. So local governments can still run their own public transport programmes in addition to the Federal government. |
| Date | 23:32:40, August 23, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | OOC: Ohhh....I see, thanks. Guess I'm for then. |
| Date | 12:00:15, August 24, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | Would any of my honourable friends object to moving to vote? |
| Date | 14:11:35, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | I would highly encourage a vote to establish legal precedent. |
| Date | 20:48:59, August 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Supremacy of and Respect for Federal Law |
| Message | " "And the Federal Parliament did so illegally, as we had not given a mandate to legislate on such issues. Just because the states SAY they can do something doesnt mean they actually can." ^ I take that statement as agreement with the proposed resolution. OOC: they cannot change *Federal* laws. This principle does not contradict the local government from making any sort of law. It just assures that when the Federal government has made a law on an issue, the local government should not contradict it. This doesn't mean that the Feds have to be making laws on every issue. Indeed, the Federal government can make laws on very *few* issues but where it *does* make a law it has to be obeyed, insofar as it extends to the local government. Example 1: The Federal government bans citizens from posessing enriched uranium and using it to make crude nuclear weapons. In this case, local governments cannot make a law legalising this in their own locality. Example 2: the Federal government sets up a programme for public transport. In this case, the Federal government is doing something, but it is not "in the way" of the local government. So local governments can still run their own public transport programmes in addition to the Federal government." [OOC / IC: None of these are actual issues and so are invalid. Im not voting against, this is just a pointless bill as it isnt legal under Rutanian law the states only have a mandate to legislate on something if we give it to them, so yes I do "agree with you" but Im not disagreeing on the specific point, Im just saying that this bill is a complete waste of time and wont stop the Delvar situation occuring again because the Delvar situation wasnt caused by anything this deals with.] |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 508 | |||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 91 |
| Random fact: There are two countries based on Egypt in the game. Cobura is based on modern Egypt with a retro twist, while Hawu Mumenhes is based on Ancient Egypt with a modernist twist. |
| Random quote: "To live anywhere in the world today and be against equality because of race or color is like living in Alaska and being against snow." - William Faulkner, Essays, Speeches and Public Letters |