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 Police and Military Act of 2540
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Democratic Party
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: April 2542
Description[?]:
| To repeal laws that "protect" against perceived domestic threats, allowing our republic's military to focus on the true threats that lie across the border. |
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 and the military may be called in to help in serious emergencies.
Current: A civilian police force is in place, backed up by the military.
Proposed: A civilian police force is in place and the military is not allowed to play any part in it.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:54:44, March 02, 2008 CET | From |  Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Separation of Police and Military Act of 2540 |
| Message | We should not hamstring our security. Nay. |
| Date | 17:50:10, March 04, 2008 CET | From | Federal Republican Party | To | Debating the Separation of Police and Military Act of 2540 |
| Message | OOC: What of natural disasters? The domestic police force can't control that by themselves. I know some of you aren't Americans, and being as I am I can only speak for the situation here in this context. It is within our bill of rights that our military has -zero- clout on American soil, period. We've two amendments in the Bill of Rights establishing this quite clearly. There have been a handful of times in all of America's history where the military was used as a "policing force" and the most recent and likely all will recall was Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast. Typically, if there is a major natural disaster or what have you, the police take a role of keeping things running and continue to operate as the domestic "keepers of the peace." However, due to the often overwhelming logistics of such operations the state/commonwealth's national guard troops come in to aide. This is not unconstitional in the U.S. as the National Guard is specifically setup to handle such items and to be geared for true military service; they aren't police. Now under, to cite a few-Lincoln, F. D. Roosevelt and the current President Bush the army has been used which directly violated the constitution. Though, it was the only option due to again-the logistics of the environment and for instance Katrina; over 70% of the police force disappeared.... To entirely remove our national military from having any role in times of crisis seems a disaster waiting to happen to me. And ought seem obvious enough. Sadly, the game doesn't allow us to go this extensive with such proposals and notions. |
| Date | 23:09:40, March 04, 2008 CET | From | Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Separation of Police and Military Act of 2540 |
| Message | OOC: You've made some great points, FRL. I'd just assumed that the law was about the police qua police and gave it no second thought. As you said, it's unfortunate that the choices we're given aren't more finely grained. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 48 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 153 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 224 |
| Random fact: You can view helpful ideological statistics about the regions in your nation on the region pages. You can also view detailed political opinions and the importance of them there as well. |
| Random quote: "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." - Jean Chretien (describing the level of proof about weapons of mass destruction that Canada required to join the Iraq War) |