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: Liberation Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Republics Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2780
Description[?]:
| All previous "amendments" are removed after passage of this bill. All "executive orders" are revoked. Executive orders will not be allowed in the future. Executive authority is solely vested in the HoG. UNT, NATO, and all other international organizations with headquarters in Lodamun must vacate them and establish new centers of operation outside Lodamun. |
Proposals
Article 1
Withdraw from the United Nations of Terra.
Article 2
Withdraw from the Northern Area Treaty Organisation (NATO).
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The title of the head of government, who chairs the cabinet.
Old value:: Prime Minister and First Commander of the Armed Forces
Current: Vice-President of the Commonwealth
Proposed: Prime Minister
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The formal title of the Head of State.
Old value:: President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
Current: President of the Commonwealth
Proposed: President
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The length of a legislative and executive term, in months. Should be between 24 and 72.
Old value:: 72
Current: 60
Proposed: 36
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:32:22, June 20, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | We obviously disagree with this proposal. The previous laws created (list provided here: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237330 ) are very beneficial for this country. It helps our government run smoothly and effectively. We encourage all parties to oppose to this bill. |
| Date | 14:15:13, June 22, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | Whats the point of an elected ceremonial figurehead, if we are going to do that we might as well go with a Monarchy. |
| Date | 19:28:48, June 22, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | The only power of the HoS would be to nominate the cabinet. I see no reason why a monarchy would be a more advantageous system. I simply decided upon that name because the Liberals have concentrated power in the HoS where in my opinion it should not be. I am open to other reforms such as alternate titles or allowing any party to nominate a cabinet if the Liberals somehow won the next election. |
| Date | 21:24:52, June 22, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | Would it not be better then to just have a Monarchy in a ceremonial role and give the largest party the power to propose cabinets. I am opposed to opening it up to all parties as you just get a whole raft of different cabinets and just bring instability and chaos. |
| Date | 23:05:39, June 22, 2009 CET | From | Church of Divine Rengheed | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | Instead of a monarchy, we could have a symbolic theocracy. =) |
| Date | 23:22:14, June 22, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | I prefer having a HoS who recieves a majority vote rather than just have the largest party do it. The largest party may represent a fringe and not the majority of Lodamese citizens. |
| Date | 04:41:11, June 23, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | Or we can stay with the same system which has been proven to work. The amendments the URP is talking about has nothing to do with cabinets or anything even close to that. Those amendments have created necessary offices within the national government to run different aspects of the governments. Those amendments the URP despises gives specific individuals specific powers to avoid any confusions in the future. The fact is that having a Presidential Line of Succession and a method of impeachment is totally necessary for a democracy to properly function. The same goes for the Supreme Court and the other offices that have been created. This "cabinet talk" is a mere diversion attempt from the URP to gather votes for this proposal. Not only are they doing it by lying but they are manipulating all of you. We highly recommend all parties to look at the offices we have created (OOC: Link provided in the first post of this discussion) and then judge by themselves. Do not let the URP manipulate you with their vicious lies and vendetta against us. This has nothing to do with the Constitutional Amendments we have previous passed. They are against anything we propose no matter how effective it is. |
| Date | 13:15:44, June 23, 2009 CET | From | Church of Divine Rengheed | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | I think the new proposed names are fine, except for the name of the HoS. "Ceremonial Figurehead" seems too...I can't think of the word. Anyway, if the HoS is just "for show" why don't we have a theocracy? *cough* CDR-controlled *cough* |
| Date | 17:42:50, June 23, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | As things stand we will only see a point to agreeing to articles 1 and 2, we are happy with names as they stand and have worked on term reform which looks set to pass. Any reform of HoS we would only really like to see go in the direction of a Monarchy. In reply to the LP in regards to article: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237330 , we feel that this is lots of bureaucracy and will look into reform and repeal especially on the contracts which we will be working on bringing into state control. |
| Date | 19:02:45, June 23, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | I don't think a hereditary monarchy will pass, but might be open to changing the HoS title to something suggesting royalty as long as it remains an elected office and all executive authority is vested in the HoG. |
| Date | 19:33:10, June 23, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | We do not see how anything reflecting a Monarchy could be an elected office, only way in such a system would work would be when a Monarch dies. |
| Date | 19:43:48, June 23, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | We should point out to the RNP that the contracts have all being paid in full already and all the equipment has been delivered years ago. There is nothing to repeal. As for the bureaucracy comment, we think that the offices created make our government run much more effectively and the clearly defined powers are certainly very helpful for all of us. We express our clear opposition to any change of the current laws with respect to the Head of State and Head of Government. |
| Date | 19:47:42, June 23, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | Hmmm I see that now when checking dates of when passed, now and how long they last. Can the LP please then remove them as they no longer exist to avoid any further confusion. |
| Date | 20:40:42, June 23, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | Hey, I was willing to meet you (RNP) halfway on the issue of monarchy but continued conversation with no willingness to comprimise on your part is pointless. I have amended the bill by leaving the title of Parliament, merely simplifying the titles of HoS and HoG, and adding language to indicate that the HoG will function as the executive. Does this change make the bill more acceptable to all parties? |
| Date | 21:13:11, June 23, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | We do find this much more acceptable and welcome continued co-operation between our two parties. |
| Date | 22:25:02, June 23, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | We have another question for the supporters of this bills: Why withdraw from two of the most important organizations in the world? Membership in both of those organizations is what makes us an influential world power. Are we to assume that those supporting this bill do not care about Lodamun's standing on the world? |
| Date | 22:41:15, June 23, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | They are pointless and we believe in parliamentary sovereignty which we believe international treaties harm. |
| Date | 22:58:33, June 23, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | So, you think that we can defend ourselves against an alliance of 5-10 countries by ourselves? That's absurd. |
| Date | 22:59:12, June 23, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | And who said NATO takes our sovereignty away. It requires absolutely nothing besides good faith by our government. |
| Date | 23:26:10, June 23, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | What makes the Liberals think that 5-10 nations will invade Lodamun? Paranoid much? NATO and the UNT have proved ineffective in resolving international conflicts. As the CDR pointed out, Lodamun needs to focus on its own internal affairs which have deteriorated under decades of Liberal corruption rather than continuing its meddling in the internal affairs of other nations - a policy which invites attack and international enmity rather than preventing it. |
| Date | 23:30:57, June 23, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | added language forcing international organizations to relocate |
| Date | 23:33:36, June 23, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | We are in agreement with what the URP says. |
| Date | 23:51:19, June 23, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | Of course you are. We wouldn't expect less of the RNP. |
| Date | 12:19:43, June 24, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | The URP have shown a willingness to co-operate and compromise to work in the interests of Lodamun. The LP are only working for their own interests. |
| Date | 23:59:41, June 24, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | Did we stated otherwise? |
| Date | 09:37:59, June 25, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | OOC: I should point out to everyone that this bill will eliminate all previous amendments including those in effect since the creation of the Union. So, we will have no way to declare war, no way of deciding who controls what and who decides what. Now, I can easily get the amendments I created back up by simply repealing this bill. I just wanted to make that very clear to avoid future confusion by anyone. Let this be the only warning I will give to all of you. Not knowing who does what and not having a clear executive and judicial structure (including a way to impeach government officials) has created a lot of problems before and I have seen very heated and pointless debates over what should be done. All I have proposed has a logical explanation behind it and is taken out of experience. I will certainly not participate in any pointless debates over who should do what, how it should be done, ect. I know it will happen. I give you my word on that. |
| Date | 09:59:18, June 25, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | Just so you're clear, you can't just pass a bill repealing this one. This bill amends the constitution to remove amendments and any new amendments would require a 2/3 vote. I'll add this language so as not to confuse you. Your concerns regarding who controls what is somewhat unfounded since this bill clearly places executive authority in the hands of the HoG while the current titles of First Commander and Commander in Chief are far more confusing and open for debate. Declarations of war can be passed by Parliament under normal rules. A new judicial framework may need to be created, but the current system under the complete control of the LP is broken. LP judges don't enforce the law, rather they have siezed private property without compensation in violation of the law and never offered a logical opinion justifying this. The current court system would give the Liberals a vote in the courts, but the URP believes judges should have some intelligence and at least limited reasoning abilitiies - which would obviously exclude future LP participation. |
| Date | 10:08:48, June 25, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | OOC: Seriously, man, what's wrong with you and the in-character/out of character ordeal? My message was all OOC and I can't tell which part of yours is IC or OOC. First and foremost, no matter what you do a bill repealing this one basically wipes it out thus rendering useless. All the wording of it will be thrown out and it would be as if it never happened. Just like you are trying to do here. I would expect the same standard be held for everyone, don't you think? If you expect me to fall for your imposing attitude, you are incorrect. You see, I was nice enough to give you a heads-up on the legalities of this bill but apparently my efforts were not worth a thing. At least not with you. Let me summarize it again for you: If this bill passes, I can repeal it with another Constitutional Amendment and thus bringing back the old amendments. Same thing you are doing just backwards. It doesn't matter what wording you include in the bill. Do we understand each other? |
| Date | 10:15:15, June 25, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | When will the Liberals control 2/3 of Parliament? Or when will the Liberals convince other parties to reintroduce all of it's pointless offices like assistant undersecretary of intelligence for Gaduridos? Never because it's a useless office. I understand you, but I'm not scared because no one agrees with you. That's why you fear democracy. |
| Date | 10:24:20, June 25, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | OOC: I really won't tell you again to get a hold of the IC/OOC concept. Believe me, I have tried. The record shows it. As far as whatever you just said: It's good to know that you understand the concept. Don't come back to me with your usual attitude and rhetoric whenever I decide to propose the repeal of this bill (if it even passes). And do remember that I have had a super-majority for quite a while now. |
| Date | 12:53:44, June 25, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | It doesn't really matter if the bill passes or not because I think the current opposition will have a majority and can just ignore your laws. As I stated previously, I don't consider your amendments valid. Their repeal is simply a formality. |
| Date | 14:27:05, June 25, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | OOC: I dont see where the URP are going wrong with the IC/OOC, I am confused by your complaints. IC: To ever get the LP's constitutional amendments implemented again after the passage of this bill the LP will need the 2/3's majority something which I am confident will not happen for the foreseeable future. The Liberals have had a super majority for a while because they have not faced any real opposition, however that is now about to change as we are here and we are offering Radical change. The Liberals may have to face the fact that they could be sitting on the opposition benches for some time. |
| Date | 09:38:17, July 01, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | We would like to point out to all parties that this bill will, in fact, withdraw us from two very important organizations: NATO and the UNT. Lodamun is a founder of both organizations and both organizations play a vital role in the world. There is no need for Lodamun to withdraw from the aforementioned organizations unless we want to be left unprotected and isolated from the entire world. |
| Date | 11:23:04, July 01, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | We feel that the Liberal Party is just scare mongering and the fact is that we face no threats now or for the foreseeable future. |
| Date | 18:27:37, July 01, 2009 CET | From | Kébé Front | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | A temporary measure. |
| Date | 04:15:12, July 02, 2009 CET | From | Free Peoples Leftist Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | Withdrawing from international treaties is NOT acceptable. Revoking Executive orders that are benifical to the nation is NOT acceptable. Removing Executive powers is NOT acceptable. This bill is NOT acceptable, it is as simple as that. The moment that either the we, or the Liberal Party, have the chance, all the articles in this bill will be overturned. |
| Date | 15:36:23, July 02, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Liberation Act |
| Message | I'm unsure why abolishing executive orders is unacceptable. If the FPLP is convinced that certain executive orders should become law, I invite them to propose bills to make them law. Frankly, I wonder what executive orders are beneficial to Lodamun and am left scratching my head to come up with a single example. The fact is that executive orders are simply not permitted under the constitution and under Matt Diggory's Presidency are being ignored. Executive orders are not laws and will not be treated as such. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 46 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 14 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 40 |
| Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current. |
| Random quote: "In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a cheque. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Martin Luther King Jr. |