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: Kalistani Bill of Rights
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cathartic Crisis Coalition
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: June 2761
Description[?]:
| Kalistani Bill of Rights The Rights of Every Kalistani Citizen For the Purpose of clearly defining and establishing the Limits of Government and the Rights of the People of Kalistan, the Government of Kalistan proposes the following Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution. These Rights shall hereby be the greatest Protection which the People have against Tyranny. Article I- This Bill of Rights shall pass if two thirds of the existing parties of Kalistan vote in favor of it. Each Party has one vote; number of Seats does not matter. This Bill of Rights can also be repealed by a vote of two thirds of the parties of Kalistan. Any amendment to this Bill of Rights shall also be passed by a vote of two thirds. Article II- All Citizens of Kalistan have the right to speak or express themselves freely; to freely assemble for any reason (including to protest against the government); to have complete freedom of the press (meaning that any press association may be established); and to petition the Government to redress any grievance. All Citizens shall have the right to freely associate with anyone. The Government shall never establish or give legislative preference to any Religion or in any way inhibit the free exercise of Religion. Article III- All Citizens of Kalistan have the right to privacy; to be secure in their property and persons against unreasonable or unlawful searches; and to be secure in their property against unreasonable seizure. The Government may not seize private property without just compensation or due process of law. Article IV- All Citizens of Kalistan have the right to a speedy trial by jury; with a defense attorney either provided for by the State or privately contracted; and the ability to confront the witnesses against them. The right of habeus corpus shall not be denied any citizen. All Citizens have the right to challenge detention and appeal any conviction. Citizens also have the right to act as their own defense Attorney if they choose. Article V- No cruel or unusual punishments shall ever be used against any Citizen of Kalistan. No citizen shall ever be deprived of their life by the Government or any citizen for any reason. Article VI- No Citizen of Kalistan shall be denied the right to live peacefully without due process of law. Article VII- No Censorship or prior restraint of the Press shall ever be conducted by the Government. The Government shall never enforce codes that regulate the use and disposal of Private Property. Article VIII- No Citizen of Kalistan shall ever be denied the right to vote in any election. The only exception to this is if that citizen is below the legal voting age. Article IX- The Constitutional Court shall have the exclusive right to hear all cases pertaining to the abuse of these Articles, and if the Court finds that the Government has abused any of these Articles, then there shall immediately be a New Election called for by the Constitutional Court and carried out by the Assembly, in order to replace the Government which violated these Articles. Any Citizen has the right to challenge any law or conviction as unconstitutional on the basis of these Articles and the right for their case to be heard before the Constitutional Court. (An example name of a case could be [Citizen's Name vs. Head of Government's Name]) Article X- It shall not be thought that these Articles in any way limit other rights held by the Citizens of Kalistan. Nor shall these rights be construed to apply to any corporate body of citizens, but to individual citizens themselves. Article XI- No Person shall be denied or deprived of Citizenship on account of Race, Color, Gender, Creed, Age, Disability, Religion, Sexual Orientation, or any other discriminatory reason. Article XII- The right of any citizen to establish an organization (such as a business, charity, or any other organization) shall not be denied or abridged by the Government. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:02:29, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | OOC: This is not meant to be a joke! I firmly believe in this Bill of rights and I really hope that all of you take it seriously. Please feel free to critique it in any way, I am open to debate and additions/subtractions (as long as they are serious). |
| Date | 03:51:35, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Well, we'll have to define citizen then. Let's take up that issue and settle it. I say from the moment first breath is drawn. |
| Date | 03:52:37, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Yeah, going to look into it, but it might take a little while before we get it up to a vote. |
| Date | 04:42:32, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Our Definition of Citizen would be that a person is a citizen from the moment their heart begins to beat. |
| Date | 14:22:27, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Ooohhh, this is going to be a fun debate. Let's get the initial, boilerplate stuff out of the way first: Why do you think an organism, which I will admit, has the potential to become a human, but is nonetheless completely, and entirely dependent upon its mother (to the point that it doesn't even create its own blood or digest its own food), is nonetheless a citizen? A citizen is a person who contributes to its country. If a person does not, no, CAN NOT contribute anything, currently, to the Nation, it is a non-citizen, and hence is not subject to our laws, nor is it entitled to our liberties. That said, if you want to define citizen as a person who has a beating heart, let's look at the implications for this bill: Art 6: Ok, the reason this is in here, if we define life as you like, will effectively end abortion, that is obvious, and I will vote against any bill of rights with this article in it, unless "Citizen" is defined as I like it, and not as you like it. Period. But it will also end the military. This said, these rights for citizens are only applicable to people who can exercise them. If we include unborn people as citizens, who can no more exercise their rights than a dead person, we also extend political status to people who have done nothing for them, and may not even want that status. How do we know? Unless citizenship is limited only to live people, I will oppose this bill of rights. I really don't want to demean your intentions here. I am sure that a bill of rights is absolutely necessary. But I will not support it if it is an attempt to push a very limited moralistic ideology on the people of this country. Article 6 and your definition of citizenship demonstrates to me that the rest is fluff, that Article 6 is the most important article for you, and the rest of this stuff is smoke and mirrors designed to get the rest of our government on board. Who opposes basic civil rights? I would take a hit if I voted against this bill, even though its real aim seems to eliminate abortion. But I will take that hit. There are other, political problems with this bill that I would want to work out with you so the language is more precise, but this article is the deal breaker for me. |
| Date | 20:03:31, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Allright, I see we will forever disagree on this issue, and I want to make it very clear that by going with you defin ition of a citizen as when first breath is draw, I am not then denying the humaness of a fetus. In my opinion, if a child is not yet born it still has the potential to become a human, and will become a human 99 times out of 100 (depending on the quality of health care) and the only thing that can stop that fetus from becoming a human is if a living human being makes the conscious decission to kill that fetus. In my opinion, that is murder. However, you will forever disagree with that and I respect your opinion. I also think that this Bill of Rights is to important to be defeated. So I will Ammend it to include your definition of Citizen. I do, however, wish that we could come to some kind of compromise on this issue, but that will be dealt with later. |
| Date | 20:09:10, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | As far as the rest of the articles go, Is everyone in agreement? Are there any other changes? |
| Date | 20:10:33, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | OOC: One of the main purposes of this was also to give the Constitutional Court more things to do. |
| Date | 20:43:16, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | I would prefer that Article 6 is removed and the idea of citizen be left up to others to decide. We can define it: it is the prerogative of a governmental sovereign to define the limits of political status. But as long as the right to life is left in there, anti-civil liberties folks will always try to use that to erode personal rights and safety. Why not take out Article 6? We already have laws which defines citizenship: "All nationals get it, and all immigrants who pass a test get it." If you are born of nationals you get it. If you are an immigrant, apparently you have to pass a test now, but you get it. This is the law. It's fairly clear. Political status (citizenship) is demarcated by law. When life begins is a completely different subject. It is not a legal distinction, it is a biological one, and the sanctity of that life is a moral one. We don't need to lay down the law as to when life begins, because guaranteed, one or the other side of this debate will say we got it wrong, irreconcilably wrong, and there can be absolutely no peace on this issue. Doctors and biologists determine that the physical processes of life begins with conception. Cells divide, the human form slowly and almost assuradly takes shape and 40 odd weeks later, a human baby is thrust into the world. Sometimes things go wrong, but the biological processes of procreation of the species begins at conception. Surely, no doctor, and no legal scholar will find spontaneous miscarriage to be murder, even if the fetus is well along the way. Things happen, and sometimes the mother's body, quite against the will of the mother and against all medical intervention, kills the fetus before it can survive on its own or with the help of machinery. Othertimes, a fetus never develops because of corruption in the initial cell division processes, and there is no chance of a viable human being the result, though conception occurred through the natural methods. Surely nobody would hold that mother legally responsible for murder. These are medical realities, and while the concieved thing is certainly alive, it will never survive to birth, let alone ever life any life. And yet it is still alive, medically and biologically. Usually, however, a normal pregnancy results in a normal birth, a normal childhood, and a normal adulthood, and anomalies are relatively rare. Does this mean that that life, before it is born is sacred? The doctors can't answer this question for us. I suppose that is between the individual and their God or their conscience or whatever it is which serves as the person's moral compass. I don't particularly believe that ANY life is sacred. There is no inherent value to life, in and of itself. So many things that I destroy every single day are either alive when I destroy them, or were at one point alive, but were killed for my use. I am in the process of dying, my life is ending, and there is absolutely nothing unnatural about that. Similarly, if someone kills me, it is OTHER people who mourn for me, for some reason, but I myself won't mourn my own loss. It is not unnatural for me to be killed, or for me to die. So my life isn't particularly sacred. What matters is what I do with my life. If I am an incorrigible socio-pathic criminal, and can't for some reason be rehabilitated, I am wasting resources, and should, if I was just, kill myself to save others the duty to society of doing it for me. My life is less important than the continuation of my society. Similarly, if I have spent my life in the service of my society, I am of value, and should be treated well by that society. There is nothing anyway particularly sacred about my life, in this sense, it is my acts which are either abhorred or lauded. And anyone has that potential, to do at least one good thing in the world. Except if they never existed. I believe that the sacredness of life is purely a moral consideration, and I am not in the business of legislating morals. Therefore, I oppose the mixture of citizenship with considerations of "life". These are two entirely different subjects, one political and the other moral. Morality should not find its way into our laws. We should instead be concerned with ethicality, that is how best to provide a good life for the people who are living. Sort out how valuable human life is with God: As far as me and my God are concerned, there is nothing particularly sacred about any single one of us, living, dead or prior to birth. If you remove Article 6, I can drop objection to the rest of the bill, in spirit, though will be happy to work out wording with you on it as an equal and enthusiastic partner in this legislation, which I also believe is very important. |
| Date | 20:43:50, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | I have changes that I would like to suggest, but will not go forward until this matter is rectified. |
| Date | 20:44:36, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | What I mean to say is: we don't need Amendment's 1 or 2, if we take out Article 6 |
| Date | 22:19:58, May 20, 2009 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Kalistan (LPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | The KPK agrees with the SPoK's definition of citizen; the moment the infant draws breath is the exact moment he/she becomes a citizen, as from then on, they a contributing factor to the Kalistani society. If the child is unborn, they are not a citizen until they are born. Until then, the citizenship should be referred to from the parent. |
| Date | 01:21:30, May 21, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | I'm not going to get into a debate with you on Abortion, I don't have any time right now. Perhaps a broadening of the term "life" in Article VI would be a fair compromise. When that was written, we intended to have it mean not only the right to "live" (not be killed) but also the right to "live peacefully" or in other words to pursue happiness or to just live without being bothered by the Government. That is what the right to "life" really means, a combination of those factors. If a Citizen is defined as when he draws his fist breath, than pro life advocates can not use Article VI to argue against abortion. In my opinion, Article VI is to important to be taken out, however, we are open to compromise on the wording of it. |
| Date | 01:28:23, May 21, 2009 CET | From | United Party | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | I agree with SPoK and KPK-I will not support this bill unless if Article VI is reformed to define life as once the birth takes, or if Article VI is dropped altogether. |
| Date | 06:46:41, May 21, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Article VI is reformed, it has been for a long time now. |
| Date | 06:49:09, May 21, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | I support dropping Article VI all together. it will save us all a huge headache in the future to let people themselves settle this issue with their God. We would support rolling the second clause "No citizen shall ever be deprived of their life by the Government or any citizen for any reason" into Article 5 to outlaw capital punishment. I think this also makes murder a violation of civil rights. We do, however support non-interference in the private sphere by the government wholeheartedly, and fully agree with your sentiments about just living "without being bothered by the Government". How do we write this, however, without destroying the legitimate police powers of the state? We would support a rephrasing of that article to include "live peacefully", but have a hard time imagining what the laws that would be made pursuant to that would look like. Obviously, police arresting suspects for crimes is a denial of the citizen's rights to live in peace (arrests are inherently state-sponsored violence, not to mention the trial and incarceration of individuals, and yet, I think we will all deem that this must remain permissible state behavior.) I am, however, hesitant to see my definition of life become the definition for the republic. That is just what I, as the head of my Party believes. The representatives from my Party will vote with me one way or another, but I am no more correct in asserting that life begins at the first breath than people who assert that it begins at conception are. On this I can agree with the KPK: CITIZENSHIP begins at birth, in whatever circumstances that occurs (even if they have to live in a NICU because of premature birth, and therefore can't still breath without a respirator), but I think our law already covers that. As for life (I understand what you are getting at, but I can't see how that would not be controversial. Some objections: So Parents can no longer compel obedience from their children? So police can no longer arrest and incarcerate people? It is just fraught with potential objection, though you have, I think adequately clarified your intent with this article. And if we make it too burdened with exceptions, it sort of loses its universality. 6 needs some real reworking if it is to remain in this bill. As I said, there are other concerns as well, but I want to focus on this one, since it seems to be a stasis point. |
| Date | 06:49:24, May 21, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Ok, there are seven parties, lets all agree on how this would be passed. 5 out of 7 need to vote in favor If a party abstains, then they aren't counted as a party, so ex: 4 votes for 2 against with 1 abstain would still pass. Can we agree on this? |
| Date | 06:51:52, May 21, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | O, how about this, "No Citizen of Kalistan shall be denied the right to live peacefully without due process of law" Is that a good compromise? |
| Date | 08:00:09, May 21, 2009 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Kalistan (LPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Fair enough. |
| Date | 08:55:18, May 21, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Yeah, we like that. |
| Date | 08:56:24, May 21, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | I am also fine with your voting procedure, but let's hammer out the language, and get past all the deal breakers first. then we can shoot for 7 of 7. |
| Date | 19:07:59, May 21, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Needs 2/3 of seats. I have very little time right now, I am doing my best to work on everything. |
| Date | 21:05:31, May 21, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Alright, it has been changed, I would like to now ask the SPoK to list their other problems with this Bill, so that we can discuss them and reach an agreement. I would like to get this passed as soon as possible. |
| Date | 22:48:58, May 21, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | I would like the term "Citizenship" defined to exclude corporations. They are not entailed to civil rights under this bill, to include freedom of the press. Privately owned corporate broadcasting should not be immune from government oversight, only that which is published by individuals, using his or her own resources. I would like a statement of non-interference and non-establishment of religion added to Article 2. I would like the word "Speedy" added to a trial by jury in Art 4, and include the right to challenge one's detention (habeus corpus protections). I would also like defendants to be able to challenge the legality of all laws in court. I would like the words "No citizen shall ever be deprived of their life by the Government or any citizen for any reason" added to Article 5 to outlaw capital punishment. Art 7: A person's property cannot be censored. And the word "Censorship" with regard to the Press should be changed to "prior restraint" or prior restraint added after censorship. I don't think Amendments 1 and 2 are necessary now that we have established that these articles refer to political and not biological or moral status. I hope I didn't miss anything, but these are mostly superficial changes in the spirit of the document. The only substantial change would be the denial of citizen rights to corporations and the addition of separation of church and state. |
| Date | 00:32:21, May 22, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Ok, I made a lot of changes. Regarding Corporations, they are owned by citizens of Kalistan and therefore the owners of Corporations are entitled to the rights laid out in this Document. I will not exclude "corporations" from this Bill of Rights because the owners of Corporations are entitled to every single right that the rest of the citizens of Kalistan are entitled to. |
| Date | 03:15:05, May 22, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Right. But OOC courts in the US have also upheld that the corporations themselves have rights equal to individual citizens, and therefore, have freedom of speech, etc... and the right to lobby. I oppose offering political rights to corporations. if Bill Gates wants to donate to a campaign, he can do so, but he has to do so as Bill Gates, not be able to hire a lobbying firm to get his bills passed to the detriment of the people of the country who don't have similar resources. One man one vote, that's what I am going for. I seek to level the political access playing field by excluding corporate citizenry. |
| Date | 03:18:13, May 22, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Ok, I understand where you are coming from, is there a clause you would like to see added that we can both agree with? |
| Date | 04:11:27, May 22, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Let's set this for a vote in the next cycle, at the earliest, I don't think we're going to make the deadline. |
| Date | 07:10:40, May 22, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | I see you have incorporated my suggestions into the document so far. I would like the following phrases added to their respective articles (My suggestions will be bracketed): Preamble: "For the Purpose of clearly defining and establishing the Limits of Government and the Rights of the People of Kalistan, the [Government of the People of Kalistan] proposes the following Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution." Art 2: "The Government shall never establish [or legislatively give any preference to any] Religion..." Art 3: "All Citizens of Kalistan have the right to privacy; to be secure in their property and persons against unreasonable [or unlawful] searches [and seizures]. The Government may not seize private property without just compensation or due process of law..." Art 4: "All Citizens of Kalistan have the right to a speedy trial by jury, [with] a defense [attorney] either provided for by the State or privately contracted; and the ability to confront the witnesses against them. The right of habeus corpus shall not be denied any citizen. All Citizens have the right to challenge detention and appeal any conviction." Art 7: "[strike first sentence. One cannot censor home or property, because censorship is equivalent to keeping something from being communicated. Perhaps what you were getting at with this phrase can be explained and we can work out better wording]. No Censorship or prior restraint of the Press shall ever be conducted by the Government. Art 10: "It shall not be thought that these Articles in any way limit other rights held by the Citizens of Kalistan. [Nor shall these rights be construed to apply to any corporate body of citizens, but to individual citizens themselves.]" [I still think we should strike the amendments. The law already covers when citizenship begins, and the military is part of the sovereign power of the State, and is therefore subject to a different set of regulations. It is understood that the people in the military sacrifice some of their liberty when they join, including if need be the right to be alive, and I can't imagine anyone would ever sue the government for requiring a military person to do his job. Both are therefore superfluous.] |
| Date | 15:58:23, May 22, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | I didn't like the ammendments either, so I got rid of those. As far as striking the first part of Article &, I meant it to mean that the Government can't tell you how your house has to look or what you cvan put on your property, etc... I think its important so I left it in there. i think this Bill is very reasonable, it is not very condusive to any single party, it highlights some of the Basic principles which I feel the Citizens of Kalistan are entitled to. I now would ask all the other parties to voice any complaints they may have. If there are none, then I suggest this Bill be pushed immidiately to vote. |
| Date | 22:03:29, May 22, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Perhaps then, it can be rephrased to say something like "The government shall never enforce neighborhood covenants or codes that regulate the use and disposal of personal property." This would get to what you are going for, and would also essentially outlaw discrimination in housing. |
| Date | 22:11:03, May 22, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Also, need a space, in article 3, between "unreasonable" and "or". Also add protection for free association into Article 2, in the "free assembly" clause. (free assembly and association.) I am completely committed to seeing this bill passed, and with these changes, it will be the bill I would have written if I set out to do it. |
| Date | 08:03:19, May 23, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Alright, Now is the time for this bill to be put to a vote, if 2/3 of all parties that vote (abstention do not count) vote in favor of this bill, then it will be passed. OOC: Just a heads up, I will be using this to challenge Laws currently in effect in Kalistan, so Constitutional Court Members, be ready! |
| Date | 10:08:27, May 23, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | This is going to be reset. |
| Date | 12:13:50, May 23, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Since this is going to be reset, I would like to request the following changes/additions: My changes in brackets: Article II- All Citizens of Kalistan have the right to speak [and express themselves] freely; to freely assemble for any reason (including to protest against the government); to have complete freedom of the press (meaning that any press association may be established); and to petition the Government to redress any grievance. All Citizens shall have the right to freely associate with anyone. The Government shall never establish or give legislative preference to any Religion or in any way inhibit the free exercise of Religion. [Article XI: No citizen shall be deprived of of any of these above stated rights, nor of association, progeny, property, protection under the law, life, liberty, or employment, nor be the subject of violence due to race, ethnicity, color, language, sex, age, disability, appearance, religion, sexual orientation, or ancestry.] We also support SPoK's addition of the language against neighborhood covenants or codes, as an explanation of "censorship of homes." We suggest as: Article VII- [The government shall never enforce neighborhood covenants or codes that regulate the use and disposal of personal property] property shall ever be conducted by the Government. No Censorship or prior restraint of the Press shall ever be conducted by the Government. The Government shall never enforce codes that regulate the use and disposal of Private Property. Combining the language of the SPoK and the CCC. |
| Date | 15:19:15, May 23, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | We like RFP's additions, though will point out that property appears twice in a row in Art VII. |
| Date | 15:20:29, May 23, 2009 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | OOC: I will be curious as to what application the CCC finds in the Constitutional Court. No sooner will we make the law than we begin re-interpreting it. Interesting. |
| Date | 17:48:46, May 23, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Ok, I will add the language to Article II and Article VII, but I will not add Article XI because in my opinion, this information is already in the Document, I can, however, add "No Person shall be denied or deprived of Citizenship on account of Rec, Color, Gender, Creed, Age, Disability, Religion, or Sexual Orientation." This would make a lot more sense. |
| Date | 19:59:42, May 23, 2009 CET | From | United Party | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | I geuss the bill will pass now that five parties have voted in favor. |
| Date | 22:12:49, May 23, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | MY vote is assuming that the additions will be added when the bill resets. |
| Date | 02:18:22, May 24, 2009 CET | From | Cathartic Crisis Coalition | To | Debating the Kalistani Bill of Rights |
| Message | Alright, this is the final version, I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was going to reset. This is the Final Vote! If it doesn't pass, then we got to work out our differences! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 586 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 164 |
| Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass. |
| Random quote: "In politics, madame, you need two things: friends, but above all an enemy." - Brian Mulroney |