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: Civil Liberty Reform Act
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 2605
Description[?]:
| new bill |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Weapon concealment.
Old value:: Local governments may set and enforce concealed carry laws.
Current: Where weapons are carried, this must be done openly.
Proposed: Where weapons are carried, this must be done openly.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government position in respect to crossdressing policy.
Old value:: Local governments determine the legality of crossdressing.
Current: Crossdressing is allowed.
Proposed: Crossdressing is allowed.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are prohibited.
Current: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Proposed: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on public nudity.
Old value:: Public nudity laws are left to local governments.
Current: There are no laws with regards to public nudity, it is allowed.
Proposed: There are no laws with regards to public nudity, it is allowed.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Displays of public affection and obscenity laws.
Old value:: Local governments may regulate laws on public acts of affection and obscenity.
Current: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Proposed: Sexual intercourse is illegal in public.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:59:08, July 11, 2008 CET | From | Regional Acronym Political Establishment | To | Debating the Civil Liberty Reform Act |
| Message | This is a lot of proposals for a single bill. Any chance of trimming it down and splitting it into 2 or 3 seperate bills? |
| Date | 23:04:48, July 11, 2008 CET | From | Telamon National Party | To | Debating the Civil Liberty Reform Act |
| Message | We can agree with 1 & 8 otherwise no. |
| Date | 09:31:10, July 12, 2008 CET | From | Democratic Capitalist Delegation | To | Debating the Civil Liberty Reform Act |
| Message | If we are to take power from local governments, than the only acceptable way to do so as far as we are concerned is by deregulating those responsibilities. This bill doesn't even completely do that much. Daunte Woodson Chairman Democratic Capitalist Delegation |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 248 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 253 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required." - Winston Churchill |