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: Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949
Details
Submitted by[?]: Utilitarian Party of Solentia
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: February 2953
Description[?]:
| The purpose of this bill is to ease and cope with the difficulties and perceived threat coming from bizarre provisions present in some bills. It is outrageous that a party proposes a bill whose rules state that although it only needs a plurality of votes to be enacted (more yes' than no's), the same bill requires either 2/3 of the unanimous consent of the Senate to be repealed. SR 91: IUT [http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=219549] is just one of these examples. Section I: Definitions 1) The principle of discontinuation states that each legislature is legally and constitutionally a new and novice body. The legislature carries no responsibility on the bills submitted to the previous legislatures and it may enact it own rules of procedure. Section II: Proposals 2) Unless it is overturned according to article 4, new legislatures will follow this particular principle with no regards to future name changes of the Parliament of Solentia. 3) Bills containing provisions demanding a different amount of votes between approval and repeal of a particular bill are binding only for the legislature which first submitted the aforementioned bill. Any future legislature may overturn that particular bill according to the procedure it agrees on. Section 3: Validity of the act 4) The principle of discontinuation is not a rule of procedure, it is rather a legal principle not subject to the restrictions outlined for rules of procedure in this bill. The principle of discontinuation can be overturned by the method the legislature wishing to overrule it finds acceptable. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:01:52, June 06, 2010 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | "The CPS does not support the wording of Section II, Article 3. '... according to its own proceedings' could be interpreted to allow a 1 vote necessary to overturn something which was enacted with 2/3rds support. Rather than a policy of total discontinuation, the CPS suggests that all bills should not be allowed to require more votes to overturn than were required to enact." CPS Chairwoman Andrea Bryant |
| Date | 22:04:58, June 06, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | OOC: I think a discontinuation policy effectively prevents many problems from being present. I agree with you on the wording. What do you suggest? |
| Date | 22:13:46, June 06, 2010 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | OOC: That may be, but discontinuation also presents significant problems, in my opinion. All legislation enacted by one Senate is essentially rendered illegal so long as the current Senate wishes it to be. This cannot be allowed to happen, Senates in the past passed these bills for a reason, they oughtn't be nullified simply because some modern Senate finds them inconvenient. I suggest again that we simply do away with the policy of requiring more votes for repeal than were required for passage. This way we know for sure how many votes will be needed, and the voices of past Senates are not silenced without due process. |
| Date | 22:56:17, June 06, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | OOC. No, what discontinuation seeks is only that procedure rules are rendered void. That way bills remain in place, but agreements or provisions referring to how many votes are needed to undo something are rendered void. The RP bills remain also in place, but things concerning just to procedure can be agreed on by the new Senate. |
| Date | 23:06:52, June 06, 2010 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | OOC: My argument is that with that policy of discontinuation, a Senate can decide that a bill passed with 2/3rds only needs a majority to repeal, which would be the opposite situation of what we have now, and would be just as unworkable. We need each Senate to set the rules by which its passed legislation is going to be repealed, but we also need to limit the way in which the Senate can set those rules. If a bill passes with 2/3rds, it should be allowed to be repealed by 1/2 unless that Senate that passed it is ok with it, and contrarily, if a bill passes with 1/2 it shouldn't be allowed to only be repealed by 2/3rds. |
| Date | 23:19:38, June 06, 2010 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | OOC: Shouldn't* not should, in the 3rd line. |
| Date | 00:03:35, June 07, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | OOC: Ok, I do agree with you. But the principle of discontinuation was an interesting added element. So, our new policy would be that repealing needs exactly the same amount of votes as for enacting? What about RP things? Resolutions need only a plurality, not even a majority. Things like this crazy peace minister and Justices? And by the way, I certainly expect to get some action as a Justices. Any ideas? Court-martialing President Astor for incompetency? :P |
| Date | 00:11:58, June 07, 2010 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | OOC: RP bills are the only thing we can cover with this. RP bills should be required to state within their articles exactly how many votes are necessary to pass, and exactly how many are necessary to repeal. A Senate may choose to allow a 50% + 1 vote overturn their own bill that was passed with 67%, but they probably wouldn't. It doesn't NEED to be the exact same number of votes, it just can't be more. Does that make sense? |
| Date | 07:01:16, June 07, 2010 CET | From | Radical Nationalists | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | we are considering |
| Date | 21:31:32, June 07, 2010 CET | From | Radical Nationalists | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | it has our vote |
| Date | 23:28:28, June 07, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | Section II article 3 changed: -It read: "according to its own proceeding." -Now reads: "3) Bills containing provisions demanding a different amount of votes between approval and repeal of a particular bill are binding only for the legislature which first submitted the aforementioned bill. Any future legislature may overturn that particular bill according to the procedure it agrees on." It is thus clear, that this will only take effect in the case the particular bill demands a different amount of votes between approval and repeal. A bill requiring 2/3 for approval and 2/3 for repeal is not subject to this provision or a bill requiring a plurality for approval and a plurality for repeal is not subject to this provision or A bill requiring 50% +1 for approval and 50% +1 for repeal is not subject to this provision. A bill requiring 2/3 for approval and 50% +1 for repeal is subject to this provision (in practice hardly would anyone do this) or the case of SR 91. We think this principle covers all possible cases. |
| Date | 23:42:30, June 07, 2010 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | Following the recent revisions, the CPS will support this legislation. |
| Date | 20:37:33, June 11, 2010 CET | From | Utilitarian Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Principle of discontinuation Act of 2949 |
| Message | Seeing no further opinions against this bill have been voiced, we vote on this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 82 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 15 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy is set in the fictional world of Terra, which mirrors the real world of today and yet is not quite like it. |
| Random quote: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson |