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: Supreme Court Creation (2482)
Details
Submitted by[?]: 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
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: February 2518
Description[?]:
| This legislation shall establish a Supreme Court for Sekowo. Section 1: Article 1; -The Supreme Court judges shall be voted for every 10 years. Article 2; -The Supreme Court shall be comprised of nine seats. Article 3; -All parties may nominate Supreme Court Justices. Article 4; -The confirmation of any and all Supreme Court Justices shall require atleast 2/3 of the Legislature to vote in favor. Article 5; -In the case that a sitting Justice dies or otherwise becomes incapable of performing their duties, the Head of State shall have the power to fill the seat for the remainder of the term. Section 2: Article 1; -The Supreme Court shall have the power to nullify legislation deemed to be unconstitutional. Article 2; -The Supreme Court shall have the power to overrule the results of any and all inferior courts. Article 3; -Any case which has been ruled upon by inferior courts may be appealed and submitted to the Supreme Court for it's consideration. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:37:34, November 08, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | Sounds good. |
| Date | 00:37:54, November 08, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | I think it should be every ten years, but of course this is a joint decision, so what does everyone else think? |
| Date | 00:56:27, November 08, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | Yes, 10. |
| Date | 12:12:30, November 08, 2007 CET | From |  Chattes en Chaleur | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | CeC would support 10 years and the provision that only the largest 3 parties could nominate justices. |
| Date | 12:17:23, November 08, 2007 CET | From | Chattes en Chaleur | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | CeC would like to add that we feel voting for a creation of a supreme court should require 2/3 majority. |
| Date | 15:17:10, November 08, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | As it is quasi constitutional, it would require 2/3 to vote. Further more we do not believe the Supreme Court should be based on a popularity contest by only allowing the top three to nominate candidates. |
| Date | 23:05:14, November 08, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | Maybe Archon nominates a candidate and apella approves or disaproves of the candidate? |
| Date | 03:47:11, November 09, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | The Archon has historically stayed the same person to long for that to really work. |
| Date | 05:01:15, November 09, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | Times are changing. Plus hopefully people can learn to compromise. (and apoint moderates) |
| Date | 15:38:01, November 09, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | The Executive's power is to compounded as it is, giving them the power to appoint the judiciary via being the only one who can nominate them is simply a bad idea in our opinions. |
| Date | 09:01:33, November 10, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | I'm redrafting this taking into acount the opinions of all. |
| Date | 23:12:05, November 10, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Pluralism Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | If we have a Supreme Court, then we also need a Constitution other than the official one on the nation page. That one is backed up by game mechanics, so RPing it would be silly. We could write up this new constitution and then ratify it as a treaty. |
| Date | 05:54:54, November 11, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | That would be cool, but would it not end up just being a beefed up version of the already existant game one? |
| Date | 18:39:24, November 11, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Pluralism Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | I don't think that the current game one has any mention of civil liberties--the rights of local governments and citizens. |
| Date | 01:50:24, November 13, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | Well, the way local government powers tend to change, so that probably would'nt be a good thing to incude in one, unless they were things that the game does'nt include. Civil Rights would be good, but I doubt all parties that come into existance would follow suit, and get 2/3 agreeing before putting a bill to vote in regards to them. |
| Date | 03:48:44, November 13, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Pluralism Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | Well, if the Supreme Court can't enforce anything that the game mechanics don't already do, then it seems pretty extraneous--and perhaps even an instrument of manipulation by a select few parties. |
| Date | 05:29:19, November 13, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | The Supreme Court would deal with things like people not being treated fairly of denied there rights. If we can everyone to agree on a Consitution, and to need to get 2/3 support before bringing a bill having to deal with constitutional to vote, it would be great. We would also support such a thing as well. |
| Date | 15:04:12, November 13, 2007 CET | From | Chattes en Chaleur | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | CeC would support the creation of a charter of rights and the creation of a supreme court. |
| Date | 05:39:51, November 14, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Pluralism Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | Yeah, I would support it only if a charter of rights is created. Otherwise, "civil rights" could be a hugely arbitrary area of power. |
| Date | 11:06:46, December 03, 2007 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | We are hesitant to support the creation of a Supreme Court. We are wary of judicial legislating. We will wait to declare an official position until further debate has been held. |
| Date | 17:40:01, January 16, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | Seeing as the Constitution is not going to be ready for a very long while, it is more prudent to create the Supreme Court now and simply enshrine it into the Constitution later. |
| Date | 18:08:46, January 16, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | OOC: Basically it will have the same powers and authority as the Supreme Court of the United States has. Only real difference being that nominations for Justices work through the Semi-presidential Parliamentary system rather than that of a traditional Presidential Republic. |
| Date | 20:14:57, January 16, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | We oppose article 1. Judicial legislation is anything but helpful. |
| Date | 21:55:27, January 16, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | Unregulated democracy is a bad thing. Constitutional Democracy is the only successful form of it, the Supreme Court would act as the enforcer of it to prevent legislation deemed unconstitutional (this would'nt come into effect until we have a constitution) from being able to take into affect. |
| Date | 06:06:13, January 17, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | I'm pretty sure this would count as constitutional and require a 2/3 majority to pass. |
| Date | 06:53:49, January 17, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | Well, there is no constitution so far, so.. |
| Date | 09:14:38, January 17, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court Creation (2482) |
| Message | And you think that the creation of a surpreme court should require fewer votes than changing the national anthem or how the Tenno is elected? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 398 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 260 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 92 |
| Random fact: The grey space in the east is populated by the forum-based countries, known in-game as the former colonies or the "Third World". These countries are managed by the Third World Coordinator but players can request control of individual countries in the Third World Control Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8302 |
| Random quote: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tenche Coxe |