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: Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act
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: July 2823
Description[?]:
| Given the imminent passage of the "Constitutional Change and Call for Referendum, March 2819" (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=264887 ) , it becomes necessary to establish a clear power structure to better execute the duties faithfully entrusted on us by Lodamese citizens. This Constitutional Amendment will provide the re-establishment of Laws, Acts, and Agencies to focus on the proper execution of our laws and focus on the democratic principle our citizens hold so dearly. The restructuring of the executive branch will provide necessary clarification for the appropriate discharge of our Constitutional duties and will significantly prevent any conflicts that could harm our country and our citizens. This Constitutional Amendment will order the following: 1) Repeal the Second Liberation Act of May 2781 ( http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=256770 ) and all its provisions. 2) Repeal the Second Liberation Act Clarification of May 2781 ( http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=256774 ) and all its provisions. 3) Reinstate/Reestablish all the Laws, Acts, and Agencies in the following report with the exception of the Defense Contracts: ( http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237330 ). 4) A five year time table will be provided for the new agencies to be re-established, staffed, and its leaders appointed. Extensions may be granted at the discretion of the President and/or Parliament. 5) All Laws, Acts, and Amendments detailed in the aforementioned report will become effective immediately after this Amendment passes. This is a Constitutional Amendment and requires a two thirds majority for passage. ***Statement of Compromise by the Liberal Party*** The Liberal Party is committed to the democratic principles our country holds so dearly. We want to see a clear, well established structure that will eliminate all possible confusion that might be detrimental to our future endeavors. However, we do realize that this is a massive change from our current policy or lack thereof. We are willing to fully cooperate with all political parties to assure the passage of this bill and secure our future. We will welcome any recommendation you may have and we are open for any compromises. We look foward to working with all members of Parliament on these necessary reforms. Signed, The Members of Parliament from the Liberal Party |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:58:44, September 18, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | The current law is clear. How is instituting a series of complicated and unecessary laws more clear than the status quo? |
| Date | 22:58:58, September 18, 2009 CET | From | Tomato Searching Anarchist Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | It is against basic and fundamental principles of anarchism to restore bureaucratic acts, letters, whatever of length of the highway. Such unnecessary legislation puts a burden on the shoulders of free thought and mankind creativity by limiting it into reading and submitting to written word. Yet we are open to discuss Laws, Acts and Agencies in the point 3. |
| Date | 00:59:13, September 19, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | We would very much like to know what the TSAP would be willing to support right now. It would, obviously, allow us to identify the areas where we need to hold further discussions. We assure everyone in Parliament that we will not put this up for a vote unless we are certain it will pass, everyone has had the chance to voice their opinion/concern/recommendation, and we have fully debated the issues at hand. |
| Date | 08:38:15, September 19, 2009 CET | From | Tomato Searching Anarchist Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | Those two are alright: Creation of the Central Intelligence Operations Agency (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=244703) Supreme Court Act of 2700 (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237314) |
| Date | 16:19:29, September 19, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | The Supreme court doesn't work as written because the LP and FPP use it as a political weapon rather than a method for honest debate. Just examine their "interpretations" of laws in the past. I ask the TSAP to find one example of a logical LP argument in favor of their legal "interpretation. |
| Date | 18:10:39, September 19, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | What about the following: Presidential Line of Succession Act: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237315 Creation of the Office of the Vice-President Resolution: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237316 Cabinet Members Incapacity and Deputy Minister Act: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237317 Cabinet Member Replacement Act: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237318 Addendum to the Cabinet Member Replacement Act: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237324 Impeachment Process Resolution: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237319 Joint Chiefs of Staff Resolution: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237325 War Powers Act of 2700: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=237327 OOC: I know the last four are impossible to read, so don't worry if you don't know what they are about. |
| Date | 18:22:31, September 19, 2009 CET | From | Communist Workers Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | We'll oppose on the basis we're a new Party, and consider this a new era. |
| Date | 18:32:41, September 19, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | Is there any specific part of this bill you dislike? Or is it just the excuse that this is a new era and there can never be a need for reform? |
| Date | 02:34:14, September 20, 2009 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | We do not really see any need for these tiresome bills. |
| Date | 07:31:47, September 20, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | How about this for a need (second post): http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=57&start=120 ? |
| Date | 15:38:33, September 20, 2009 CET | From | Communist Workers Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | Bring it to a vote |
| Date | 16:56:13, September 20, 2009 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | why don't you try proposing constitutional reforms that are at least connected logically in some way? If that were the case, we're open to reforms as always, but the past Liberal "reforms" have simply been tools to enhance Liberal power. I fail to see how these are different. |
| Date | 22:07:25, September 21, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | This is an important reform and we want to wait until everyone has had a chance to make his/her point to bring this to a vote. We also want to guarantee passage before putting it to a vote. All the reforms presented have a common logic: Provide for a well defined command structure. |
| Date | 05:56:57, September 25, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Executive Power and Bureaucracy Restructuring Act |
| Message | Clearly, debate has all but stopped on this bill. We ask all parties who are not sure how to vote on this bill to vote in favor. This bill will provide a well defined command structure to avoid any future problems such as the one we recently had. Thank you. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 66 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 98 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 36 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval. |
| Random quote: "You will win, but you will not convince. You will win, because you possess more than enough brute force, but you will not convince, because to convince means to persuade. And in order to persuade you would need what you lack, reason and right in the struggle." - Miguel de Unamuno |