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: Constitutional Changes
Details
Submitted by[?]: The Liberal Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: March 2579
Description[?]:
| Several changes should be made to clarify any possible situation. President: 1- The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces 2- The President is authorized to use the military for whatever reason he/she sees necessary but he/she must inform Parliament within 90 days. The President shall not wait for a declaration of war to use the military unless as otherwise dictated by Parliament. Presidential Incapability The President can be declared incapacited to carry out his/her duties by the following possible methods: 1- The Vice-President or the first person in the line of sucession and a majority of the Cabinet must sign a written declaration stating the incapability of the President. The Vice-President or first person in the line of sucession will be named Acting President upon obtaining all the signatures necessary. 2- Upon the immediate death of the President, the Vice-President or the first in the line of sucession will be named Acting President. Vice-President 1- The Vice-President shall chair the cabinet alongside the Prime Minister. 2- In the absence of the President, the Vice-President shall be in command unless as indicated by the President. Prime Minister 1- In the absence of the President and the Vice-President, the Prime Minister shall be in command, unless as indicated by the President. 2- The Prime Minister shall have the power to ask for a declaration of war unless the President, the Vice-President, and the Defense Minister shall oppose. 3- The Prime Minister shall have control of all civilian forces along with the Internal Affairs Minister. Parliament: 1- A declaration of war or a repeal of a declaration of war shall need only more than 50% of all the seats in Parliament to pass. 2- A declaration of war cannot be proposed by any party, only by the President or the Prime Minister. 3- Treaties may only be proposed by the President, Prime Minister, or the Foreign Affairs Minister. Impeachment Process 1- To impeach a government official more than 50% of the seats in Parliament shall vote in favor. 2- The impeachment hearing shall be chaired by the Chief Justice and Parliament shall act as the jury. 3- To remove a government official two-thirds of the seats in Parliament must be in favor. Defense Minister 1- In the absence of the President, the Defense Minister shall manage the military. 2- The Defense Minister shall not order any attack to another country unless approved the President. 3- The Defense Minister shall take any necessary action to carry out the orders of the President. Foreign Affairs Minister 1- The Foreign Affairs Minister shall have the sole power of conducting foreign policy with the exception of the President, Vice-President, and the Prime Minister. 2- Any treaties or foreign policy agreement shall only be proposed by the Foreign Affairs Minister with the exception of the President and the Prime Minister. These Constitutional Changes shall pass with a 2/3 majority of Parliament. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:16:25, May 17, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | I am open to any suggestions. |
| Date | 08:47:58, May 17, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | This bill will never pass. It's too massive. |
| Date | 12:20:57, May 17, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | I oppose the one that says parliament cant propose treaties, the one that say that only the PM and president can ask for a decleration of war. This does seem in general to be focused on strenghtening the executive branch while it at the same time weakens the legislative branch a bit |
| Date | 21:01:07, May 17, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Don't say never. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean other parties won't like it. Besides this is a rough draft. This bill does not weaken the legislative branch, it just makes the role of the executive branch very clear. Who do you think can ask for a declaration of war? |
| Date | 21:13:28, May 17, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | It would be nice if instead of critizing it by saying it won't pass, you could actually make suggestions. |
| Date | 23:04:40, May 17, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Well as of right now any party can propose a decleration of war. Hte last decleration was proposed by a party in parliament, not by the president or PM (there where no VP when the war started) But this bill does weaken the legisative branch since it takes away there power to propose a treaty and its power to propose a decleration of war |
| Date | 23:48:32, May 17, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Parliament will still vote on both. The executive branch is very weak, it needs more power. The VP cannot ask for the declaration of war or propose a treaty. The Commander in Chief is the person most capable of making the assesement of going to war or not. Like I said, Parliament has the last say on both, declaration of war and treaties. What about the other subjects on this bill? |
| Date | 02:31:08, May 18, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | I dont think the executive branch needs more powers than it has. The VP cant ask for a decleration of war or a treaty, but his party can in the legislature. And also the most capable people of making the assement of if we should go to war or not would be the generals in charge who know the military and its capabilites, but I am not saying we should give them the power to ask for a decleration of war, only politicians elected by the people should ever make such desicions. And since its the political side of declearing a war we deal with, I think the parliament is better suited than the president for making such desicion, as the parliament consists of 150 people who in total has recived a bit over 134 million votes (last election results) while the president only got a bit over 66 milion votes (last election results) About the other subjects of this bill I would like you to specify what you define as civilian forces. But I also think if the executive branch alone should be able to propose a decleration of war that the president should be able to veto a PMs proposel, even if the VP and MoD support it. |
| Date | 02:55:44, May 18, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | In order for the PM to ask for a declaration of war all three of them must agree. The PM can ask for the declaration of war and if the President says no then it is not valid. The president is the Commander in Chief, so the generals report to him. The president is also a politician and he is elected by the people. Actually more people elect the president than a single Parliament representative. Parliament is going to vote on the declaration of war, so they make the final decision. Civilian forces are all of those nonmilitary forces (police, etc.) The executive branch has no power except for the president being Commander in Chief. It needs more power. All the power given to it is still checked by the legislative branch. |
| Date | 03:13:03, May 18, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | The ececutive branch can represent our nation abroad, and are also the branch who runs the country on a daily basis. I do not think it needs any more powers. And also in a presidential race there is two candidates (second round which usally ends up deciding), while in a parliament election there is more choices. Also in a parliament each region has decided who they want to represent them and there interests, while in the president you can eather vote for guy a or b, so you just have to vote for whoever you dislike the least. And also about the PM and the decleration of war, your bill language says "The Prime Minister shall have the power to ask for a declaration of war unless the President, the Vice-President, and the Defense Minister shall oppose", which I interpet to mean that all 3 have to oppose the PM, not just one. |
| Date | 03:21:36, May 18, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Maybe I should have the "and" to "or." I can see how it might be kind of confusing. The problem is that the President as Comamnder in Chief is the one handling our military. He should be the one to dtermine whether or not we should use the military in a conflict. Like I said, Parliament will still vote on it. If we wait until a declaration of war is proposed by Parliament and passed, we would not have a country to defend anymore. |
| Date | 03:24:54, May 18, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | If attacked we dont need a decleration of war, because then the attack on us will constiture a decleration of war on us, and as such our military will be fully within its juristiction using military might repelling the invasion |
| Date | 03:33:55, May 18, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | According to the current laws, the military will have to wait for a declaration of war. I totally agree with you, the military will be in its jurisdiction. But since the Commander in Chief does not have any power he can't act. That is what I tried to fix on this bill. I included a clause saying that if we get attacked, the President can respond without waiting for a declaration of war. Even though it might be implied that the military can do it, legally there is nothing that says that. This bill will. |
| Date | 03:41:20, May 18, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Which law says the military will have to wait for a decleration of war from us? If we are attacked that would constitute a decleration of war against us, which would mean that we would be in a state of war, so the president would be able to act. But even if the president couldnt have acted the generals could, and could basicly do anything to repel the invasion, because if our soldiers are attacked they can fire back |
| Date | 03:51:53, May 18, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | Is there any law indicating that the generals may do so or the soldiers? It is all implied but not explicitly said. What I want to avoid is any confusion and this bill makes that clear, in words, to the Constitution. |
| Date | 04:15:15, May 18, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | The only thing a decleration of war does is put us in a state of war against the nation we declear war on. Since a attack on us would constitue a decleration of war on us, we would be in a state of war and therfore the armed forces would be allowed to respond. A decleration of war is needed for us to enter a state of war, but the decleration of war does not have to be made by us, it can be made against us too |
| Date | 05:39:34, May 18, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | There is no law that says the military can respond. This law will make it official. |
| Date | 17:49:53, May 18, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | as I said a decleration of war entitles the military to act in a state of war, and there is no law who says our military cant respond when in a state of war, so it would not be illegal for them to act, and because its not illegal of them to respond, there is no need to make anything official, as they already have the power. |
| Date | 23:15:04, May 18, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | But it is not legal either. If you don't have it on paper, you don't have it at all. I don't disagree with you that the military may have that implied power but we need to make it legal. |
| Date | 23:42:55, May 18, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | This bill also adresses the possible ways in which the VP can be Acting President and how the impeachment process should be. |
| Date | 23:44:41, May 18, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | We also need to give some duties to the VP and Pm. This bill does that. |
| Date | 23:49:39, May 18, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | My view on the law is that basicly unless its stated that something is illegal its legal, because if there is nothing against it in the law then your not commiting a crime. Therfore I belive the military are allowed to respond to a invasion today. |
| Date | 00:12:00, May 19, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | My view is that if it doesn't say you can do it, then it might or might be legal. Since there is nothing written about the military, I included it in this bill. That way there is no doubt about it. You wouldn't have a problem with it because it is not changing anything, it is reaffirming it. You may have a problem with other clauses though. |
| Date | 11:35:36, May 19, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | How can something be illegal if the law does not say it is illegal? I wouldnt have a problem with the clause, since it does not change anything, but there are other things in this bill, like giving the executive branch the exclusive power to propose a declaration of war I oppose |
| Date | 21:08:16, May 19, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | bill failed |
| Date | 21:16:38, May 19, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | The proble is that the LP claims he's "open to changes" and then refuses to change anything. |
| Date | 05:11:52, May 20, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | You especially, don't make any positive suggestions. I debate my point with someone that makes a positive suggestion like LLP but if I think my point is valid, I don't change things. |
| Date | 05:29:58, May 20, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Changes |
| Message | So why claim you're "open to changes?" Isn't that just a lie? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 35 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 101 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 14 |
| Random fact: Party candidates for head of state elections are not visible to the public. This means that you cannot see who will run and who will not, which adds another strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it." - Clarence Darrow |