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: Abolishment of Supreme Court
Details
Submitted by[?]: Reformed Conservative Party of Lodamun
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: May 2631
Description[?]:
| We hereby propose that Lodamun's Supreme Court be abolished. 1. The Supreme Court has not maintained the proper system for nominations to replace our justices. If you review Lodamun legislative history, it become evident that our court has not been manned for some time. 2. There have been numerous arguments against the Supreme Court in the past from almost every seated party in Lodamun. 3. Funds were never restored to the Supreme Court after they were held by the Prime Minister and Finance Minister during the vote of 2586, posted below. OOC: To accurately engage a supreme court in this simulation is too difficult and complex for the scope of the game. We propose that all questions of Constitutionality be determined by a vote of parliament, requiring a majority vote of greater than 50% seats, not parties. This is very similar to the Liberal Party's proposal of March 2582: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=194389 and the Liberal Party's proposal of April 2586: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=196301, |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:27:47, September 02, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolishment of Supreme Court |
| Message | #1- The Supreme Court Justices serve for 30 years, thus they only need to be nominated every 30 years. The Supreme Court currently has enough members. #2- Yes, that is correct, including our party but i was resolved by the passing of the Amendment to the Supreme Court Act proposed by our party. #3- That bill did not pass so the funds were not withheld. OOC: It is not difficult at all with the current system that I put in place. Since our amendment to the Supreme Court Act was passed, we are content with the current situation. We cannot allow politicians to decide on their own future. Seats in Parliament is unfair way to decide on Constitutionality (even though I once thought it would be a good idea, later I designed a plan to make it more democratic, which is the current system in place), especially if it is a problem of Constitutionality in which Parliament is a part of. Judges not politicians decide on such conflicts. Therefore, we do not support and would also like to point out that this wold require a 2/3 majority of Parliament since it is a Constitutional Amendment. |
| Date | 01:28:11, September 02, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolishment of Supreme Court |
| Message | OOC: I will look for the current system we have so you can actually read it. |
| Date | 02:56:21, September 02, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolishment of Supreme Court |
| Message | OOC: Here's the link: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=201623 |
| Date | 02:45:45, September 03, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolishment of Supreme Court |
| Message | Again, Constitutionality should be determined by the Courts. We will take this case to the World Court. |
| Date | 02:52:08, September 03, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Abolishment of Supreme Court |
| Message | *Correction Meant International Courts instead of World Court. Our democracy is going down and we will not be responsible for it. Let our citizens see this! Let the world see this! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 109 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 24 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 17 |
| Random fact: Make sure to check out Particracy's wiki. http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page |
| Random quote: "The state is nothing but an instrument of oppression of one class by another, no less so in a democratic republic than in a monarchy." - John Smith |