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: Bill of Rights
Details
Submitted by[?]: Neo-Imperial Peoples Vanguard Party (IA)
Status[?]: passed
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: September 2622
Description[?]:
| The purpose of this JOINT Resolution is to amend the national constitution, thus 2/3 majority will be required to ratify it. The following shall be known as the Bill of Rights: Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly and Petition The Imperial Diet shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Right to Bear Arms A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall be maintained by the People. While, unless having a recorded felony or other lesser criminal charge, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Search and Seizure The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The right to privacy is also secured, when there is no probable cause and no Warrant issued. Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, or any crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Trial by Jury in Civil Cases In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Powers of the Duchies and People The powers not delegated to the Imperial Diet by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Duchies, are reserved to the Duchies respectively, or to the People. CONCLUSION it is the purpose of this amendment to protect the inherent freedoms that come with the many rights and advantages of a free nation. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:09:41, August 13, 2008 CET | From | Neo-Imperial Peoples Vanguard Party (IA) | To | Debating the Bill of Rights |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the argument on the right to keep and bear arms as has become so controversial, sad as it has been that this little insignificant issue is and that this Diet has yet paid so much attention to. The economy, the real problem, seems so distant to all these members, it is sad. Let me start here to say a fact as of right now on this issue, the right to a gun is assured. All those opposed are more or less running an up hill battle against rights that everyone in this country accepts as granted. This is why, on the issue of liberal permissiveness and religiosity, the people are not split they accept the inherit contradictions and hypocrisies of wanting conservativeness and yet voting in a progressive as Governor-General. We should protect the rights they consider now to be taken for granted, the People are giving us a message, and only two parties are listening to it and thus dominating half of the electorate. Upon this specific issue, we all agree that people kill people. I'm sure even the unadvised will know not to point a gun at someone unless they are willing to pull the trigger, unless they will it in their mind to point in that direction. This is no different than using a sword, as we do in our national sport of fencing, shall we put restrictions on this as well, where does it end? They will know where that trigger is, where that safety is and at what point that gun will fire a bullet from, what more training is necessary? The training that is key here is not gun training but ethics. I would like to assume the argument put before by the gentleman from the Covenanters say, that like a car, it is reasonable to ask for a license to a gun, which I would like to specifically point out is not infringing upon the right outlined in this Bill of Rights. As a license isn't infringing on the consumers right in our free market to keep and drive a car neither is a license to a gun. As the contradiction of that would be to tell our people what and when to buy a car, then we would be dipping into the defiling taint of Communism. But what we are not discussing here is the actual merit of regulation and rather the ownership of a gun. I should say that to require someone to train in the use of a weapon does not infringe on their right to have a gun. This Bill of Rights, as has been misinterpreted to say, does not give the right of every person to have a gun, but more pointedly, it seeks to keep our government from discriminating against anyone, except those specifically listed, from owning, otherwise "keep", a weapon. This in no way, shape or form gives our local governments or this national government any less say in regulating the licensing of a weapon, which does not infringe on their right to keep or bear a weapon. Simply, it says, the right to own a gun will not be infringed by this government to anyone, I think a license requirement is not infringing. We have not infringed on that right to own and bear a weapon, as long as they do not use it without a valid license, you can buy it, but you can't use it. In the bill it says no where that there is a right to use a weapon. I yield. |
| Date | 01:13:53, August 13, 2008 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Bill of Rights |
| Message | Mr Speaker, There simply is no right in natural law to own offensive weapons – on the other hand everyone has the right to life and protection from vilence. Thou shalt not murder. It's schoolboy stuff, really. |
| Date | 02:02:23, August 13, 2008 CET | From | Neo-Imperial Peoples Vanguard Party (IA) | To | Debating the Bill of Rights |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, I have only addressed the voter concern that their right to own a weapon is under attack, thus they have acted irrationally and voted in a progressive, the facts, no matter how spinned, are undeniable no matter how the honorable councilman from the Covenanters likes to twist. Sometimes, all rights are not simply nature, rights result from tradition, this being one. This is not a battle between the bible and secularism, it is a battle for principle. I have explained here that it does not start from the barrel of a gun what happens to a victim of violence, but rather the ethics that are put before a child before they find them self at the moment of pulling the trigger. To fire a gun, even in the hands of someone untrained, will always be targeted that is how a weapon is used. It is simply a tool, why are guns so special from all of man's tools? It is not, but some would like to think it is and would like to attack it, that is why I have stated what I have stated in this Bill of Rights it goes to its very core. I should also refer back to "arms" and that that is all encompassing of even a sword. Surely to regulate the sword is even worse due to our tradition of fencing. I yield. |
| Date | 02:21:08, August 13, 2008 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Bill of Rights |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Firearms are designed for one single purpose: to kill a man: the scriptures saith, 'Thou shalt not kill'. |
| Date | 14:47:51, August 14, 2008 CET | From | Neo-Imperial Peoples Vanguard Party (IA) | To | Debating the Bill of Rights |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Has the councilman from the Covenanters ever heard of a hunting rifle or even a trophy rifle? It seems the Covenanters are all for the hunt just not the tools of the hunt, because the same could be said for a sword or a bow and arrow. This argument is a bigoted one that ignores the facts of just about everyone that uses a weapon. I yield. |
| Date | 00:24:48, August 15, 2008 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Bill of Rights |
| Message | Mr Speaker, We prefer our hunting with hounds – there's is no need to confuse the weapons of war with sport. |
| Date | 02:53:08, August 15, 2008 CET | From | Neo-Imperial Peoples Vanguard Party (IA) | To | Debating the Bill of Rights |
| Message | Councilman Andrew Ryan stood up from among his party: Mr. Speaker, I prefer a hunting rifle, can I not have the same right? As do all within this kingdom use, a gun or a knife is what one must use to make the final kill, there is no reason to suspend that on any basis unless we are talking about the scum of society. If you haven't noticed we make special exception for that kind. We aren't in two different camps you know, it will take your style of intrusive government to rectify a criminal and make it clear to them they may not buy a weapon. The honorable representative of the Convenanters, however, are exclusively against all weapons. If you could make a law to cut my arms or legs off so I couldn't use the most popular way of killing someone, a low-yield exoskeleton in this modern age has made the gun obsolete, then I'm sure he would write the law himself. That isn't what that party does, though. Of course, obsoleteness must not be a term well known among the Covenanters. After all, they will need to look at the Bible to discover that you should not do such a thing to God's creation, man. Sometimes it seems they forget that basic fact. If we lived in their society we would kill each other the same with fists and feet the same we do with gun and rifle, it doesn't matter in this high tech age. We currently have enough regulation for something obsolete for even the battlefield, an exclusive thing for sport and yet they're party not surprisingly disputes saving it as a right for men. Yet animals should have more rights than people, at least in the society this honorable councilman's party wills, we should defend them from their own stupidity or even usefulness yet let us hunt them in the worst way with hounds and not the best and kindest way with a bullet to the brain, quick painless death. Let us have the age of the savage back again, that is what they call for, savagery. Yes, let us have our blood sport and contradiction as a society. That a dog is less violent than a gun, let us show them more respect than a citizen. Wonderful! Brilliant! The Bill of Rights has passed, in it's current form, twice. His party's backward society has restrained this body on quite a few occasions, keeping things in limbo and making stability impossible because of their ignorant stubbornness. It is no wonder, considering their party endorses socialism and racism, that limbo is a kind of tradition for them. They continually isolate themselves from an otherwise democratic and intelligent society while stuck in their ways keeping us all there constitutionally. When I can't argue with them anymore, as in their society I should have no freedom of speech, we'll have them to thank. I yield. |
| Date | 00:45:41, August 17, 2008 CET | From | Christian People's Party (IA) | To | Debating the Bill of Rights |
| Message | We strongly support the right to keep and bear Arms, but Militias sounds like a huge security risk. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 100 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 80 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 20 |
| Random fact: Use a valid e-mail address for your Particracy account. If the e-mail address you entered does not exist, your account may be suspected of multi-accounting and inactivated. |
| Random quote: "Democracy is more dangerous than fire. Fire can't vote itself immune to water." - Michael Z. Williamson |