Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 01:11:11
Server time: 14:48:48, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): AethanKal | dannypk19 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)

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: October 2611

Description[?]:

The Liberal Party hereby introduces the following Articles of Impeachment against the Prime Minister and First Commander of the Armed Forces Jonas Dale:

Article 1: Violation of the Law

According to Article 1 of the State of the Union Act which states:

The Head of Government will adress Parliament every two years to inform about the State of the Union.
No such adress to Parliament has occurred in three years.

Article 2: Refusing to recognize Parliament members's petition to adress the aformentioned legislative body.
A petition signed by Parliament members of the Liberal Party asked the Prime Minister to adress the nation on the State of the Union. The petition read:
This is an ultimatum declaration issued to the Head of Government. Should you not, within the next six months, adress the nation about the State of our Union, we will introduce articles of Impeachment against you for a clear violation of the Constitutional Law set forth in the State of the Union Act Article 1.

Article 3: Misguiding the citizens of the United Republics of Lodamun
In multiple occasions the Prime Minister has refused to adress our nation citing "predence" not allowing our citizens and our Parliament to know the exact situation of our country.



According to the Impeachment Process, this articles of impeachment will be put up for a vote in order to allow debate on them. Only a majority of votes present is needed. If the total of votes casted in favor of moving the impeachment to debate reaches seventy-six, the motion will immediately enter into the debate phase.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date03:23:31, July 25, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageThe Impeachment Process is here:

http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=196617

The State of the Union Act is here:

http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=201949

Date03:24:27, July 25, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageRead the bill's description before voting. THIS IS NOT THE IMPEACHMENT.

Date03:25:00, July 25, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
Message*THIS IS NOT THE REMOVAL OF THE PRIME MINISTER

Date03:51:34, July 25, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageI direct your attention once again to the forums:

http://www.takeforum.com/particracy/viewtopic.php?p=187986&mforum=particracy#187986

Date03:51:53, July 25, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageForgot the OOC, well, the post above is OOC.

Date05:38:01, July 25, 2008 CET
FromLodamun Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageArticle 1 is a violation of the law, but article 2 is not a law, since the state of the union adress is supposed to be delivered no matter what parliament say, and it dosent change anything regarding the PMs duty to hold a state of the union.

As for article 3.
The PM has never cited any reason for not speaking about the state of the union, so that is completly false information (which is acctually a crime according to the freedom of speech law you introduced LP).
Also, its not really illegal to misguide the citizens in the fact that there is no law against it, since the PM has not delivered any false information, he havent said anything on the subject.
OOC: The PM is my character, and you cant say what he has or has not done, only I can do that. The best you can do according to the RP rules are claims.

Date05:50:06, July 25, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageOOC: I can say what he hasn't done. He has said he won't adress the nation citing "precendence." I can use anything you have said because you have said it already.

IC: Why is the LLP voting against moving this to a debate? The LLP has made it clear tht Article one is a violation of the law. Article 2 is a cause and effect. You don't deliver the adress, we, in Parliament, can petition the PM (or remind him) that he has to do it.

The LLP is supporting a politician who has broken the laws. We do not want to see the LLP ever claim a law has been broken, we will simply ignore them. What moral grounds are we going to have to tell our people, "don't break the law, you are going to be punished", when we allow politicians to break them and walk away without just punishments?

Date05:51:31, July 25, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageAs for Article 3, it is cause and effect as well. The only reason the PM would not want to adress the nation is that he wants to hide information from our citizens.

Date06:33:21, July 25, 2008 CET
FromHoly Eliyahu Confession
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageWe believe that this impeachment should be allowed to advance to debate, however we are skeptical that Mr. Dale is indeed guilty of a office serious enough to warrant removal from office.

Date10:40:42, July 25, 2008 CET
FromDemocrats
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageSeems pointless. The state of the union address is hardly a vital part of our democracy, it hasn't been used before, we don't see why it is such an issue now. Its a really pointless piece of legislation.

Article 2, well, it was hardly Parliaments petiton, it was the Liberal Party's petition, that only theLiberal Party backed. Ignoring a minority petition is hardly a great offence.

Article 3, if the citizens, and Parliament itself, read the papers, and follow legislation they will know what is happening. It seems a odd point to raise, because it is so very trivial.

Therefore we see no reason for debate on this matter to continue, there is no valid case for movement to impeachment.

Date14:55:37, July 25, 2008 CET
FromLodamun Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
Message"Why is the LLP voting against moving this to a debate?"

Because article 2 and 3 are not crimes, there is no law against doing any of them.

If you are going to impeach propse a impeachment with article 1 and we will agree to move it to a debate, since thats the only crime here

Date19:44:28, July 25, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageIf you don't allow it to go to a debate, those articles cannot be removed. Just because they are here now, it does not mean that they will be voted upon later (to remove the PM). That's why we have a debate on it.

Date19:46:06, July 25, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
Message"Seems pointless. The state of the union address is hardly a vital part of our democracy, it hasn't been used before, we don't see why it is such an issue now. Its a really pointless piece of legislation."

How dare you say that? A Constitutional Law is pointless. It is clear that the Conservatives only see laws as laws when it is convenient for them. You have no respect for our laws, we won't either, our citizens won't either.

Date13:22:15, July 26, 2008 CET
FromDemocrats
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageIts not a constitutional law, its a normal law. We have respect for the law, but this is basically a convention that has never been used. No Prime Minister has ever honoured the terms of the State of the Union Bill, so why is it of such significance now?

Date20:57:38, July 26, 2008 CET
FromThe Liberal Party
ToDebating the Impeachment Against the Head of Government (Part 1)
MessageBecause it is a law. WE DON'T CARE ABOUT OTHER PRIME MINISTERS. It is a law (constitutional) and MUST be respected by the CURRENT Prime Minister whether he likes it or not.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 39

no
  

Total Seats: 85

abstain
 

Total Seats: 21


Random fact: If you have a question, post it on the forum. Game Moderators and other players will be happy to help you. http://forum.particracy.net/

Random quote: "Education: the inculcation of the incomprehensible into the indifferent by the incompetent." - John Maynard Keynes

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 66