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: Constitution Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative 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: July 2112
Description[?]:
| All Articles of the Constitution of Beluzia will be proposed here. None proposal Acts of this bill: 1. The name of the Beluzian Republic is hereby changed to: The United Kingdom of Beluzia 2. A system of 1 seat for every 200,000 people shall take place for elections. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The constitutional right and responsibility to propose a cabinet to the legislature.
Old value:: Only the Head of State can propose a cabinet coalition.
Current: Only the Head of State can propose a cabinet coalition.
Proposed: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The nation's capital city.
Old value:: Calpicosa, Illithar
Current: Cirrane
Proposed: Calpicosa, Ilithar
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Structure of the executive branch.
Old value:: The Head of State and Head of Government are two separate officials.
Current: The Head of State and Head of Government are two separate officials.
Proposed: The Head of State is hereditary and symbolic; the Head of Government chairs the cabinet.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The formal title of the Head of State.
Old value:: President
Current: President
Proposed: Monarch
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The total number of seats in the legislative assembly. Should be between 75 and 750.
Old value:: 400
Current: 750
Proposed: 239
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:44:33, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | Someone needs to propose a national anthem for the new Beluzia, a royal Beluzia! I will put this up for a vote later. |
| Date | 02:39:08, September 16, 2005 CET | From | People's Populist Party - Zogist Mafia | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | Say what? Were not changing the anthem! |
| Date | 02:53:07, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | Fine... |
| Date | 02:53:33, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | This is good though, now we can FINALLY have a real system in place. Hurrah! |
| Date | 06:19:39, September 16, 2005 CET | From | LiberalDemocraticFreedomTaxAndSpendParty | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | What's the point of Article 3? |
| Date | 06:20:14, September 16, 2005 CET | From | LiberalDemocraticFreedomTaxAndSpendParty | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | Sorry... I mean Article 2 |
| Date | 07:31:59, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Official Dragon Bacon-Eaters' Party | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | I don't think it really matters, considering it won't change anything. |
| Date | 08:05:54, September 16, 2005 CET | From | LiberalDemocraticFreedomTaxAndSpendParty | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | Exactly, so why include it? |
| Date | 08:29:06, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | The regions name was spelt wrong, it had an extra "l" |
| Date | 20:24:15, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | Alright Right-Wingers, lets make some changes now! |
| Date | 23:21:35, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | If anyone on the left is opposed, please speak to us about it. |
| Date | 01:24:53, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | I SPECIFIACALLY ASKED THOSE OPPOSED TO CONTACT ME SO PLEAAAAAAAAAASE DO IT! |
| Date | 07:42:01, September 17, 2005 CET | From | LiberalDemocraticFreedomTaxAndSpendParty | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | This gives the people less representation in their government, so I am opposed to this change. |
| Date | 10:22:57, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | Ilithar is still wrong, the region is Iliathar. The problem is the I 's and L's look the same when one is upper and one lower case. My problem with the act is this I don't agree with hereditary heads of state especially when a country has never had one before; if Beluzia had started (in the Particracy world start) as a Monarchy then I wouldn't really mind however it did. Moreover the alteration to the election frequency (I believe that's the correct word?) creates in reality a less democratic system for all the working out of the figures etc. It would create the least democratic system we've ever had within the country. My apologies for not posting anything earlier however I thought I was leaving today and so last night I was just going quickly through bills in order to vote; and I hadn't seen the bill earlier. Again my apologies. |
| Date | 10:47:47, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Partisans And Artisans League | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | The NMRP has a point about monarchs. If they are there before thats fine because one they tend to be a non-political head of state which is handy when you want to send to other countries and look pretty. They also tend to reasonably cheap for the benefit in tourism that they create - RL example being Japanese going to London (theres only one lady they are there for) |
| Date | 10:50:45, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Partisans And Artisans League | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | But I will support this because I think that monarchs are cool. Emmm I think we should give it to someone who is of great importance - almost someone who earned it. Maybe we could have a system of it being hereditary for only a few generations and then the monarch is "re-chosen" when that family dies to a 3rd generation. This would keep the name changing... If we do this I think we should give it to an admiral... |
| Date | 22:51:26, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | It can't be called the "United Kingdom" without a "King". I think that having a hereditary head of state would be best...come on people...let us have our fun. |
| Date | 23:04:09, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Marxist revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Constitution Act |
| Message | Actually it can. Think on it, if the say the monarch had died and had no heirs that were accepted it would thus still be a United Kingdom. Moreover since a Kingdom is still a Kingdom with a Queen on the throne... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 228 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 172 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current. |
| Random quote: "More Medicament Manufacture take the profits, workers take the factory" - Boros Norbert, former Endralonian businessman |