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: Constitutional debate
Details
Submitted by[?]: Sue's Corner
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: January 2986
Description[?]:
| Debating our constituion |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The constitutional right and responsibility to propose a cabinet to the legislature.
Old value:: Only the Head of State can propose a cabinet coalition.
Current: Only the largest party can propose a cabinet.
Proposed: Each party can propose a cabinet coalition.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Structure of the executive branch.
Old value:: The Head of State and Head of Government are two separate officials.
Current: The Head of State is also Head of Government.
Proposed: The Head of State is hereditary and symbolic; the Head of Government chairs the cabinet.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Appointments and requirements for government employees.
Old value:: All government employees have to promise political independence.
Current: Government employees are selected and appointed in a political way.
Proposed: Government employees are selected and appointed in a political way.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:03:39, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | "Once again, this would place Supreme President Toynbee on a throne. That is AGAIN unacceptable." Senator Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead on behalf of the Solentian Democratic Alliance. |
| Date | 18:08:32, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | You mean in the SAME WAY your proposal would? Coleen Power |
| Date | 18:10:14, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | "No, as our proposal set Lord Belisarius as Lord Protector of a Solentian Commonwealth." Senator Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead on behalf of the Solentian Democratic Alliance. |
| Date | 18:11:28, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | The same thing. All your proposal would do would give the same job, a different title. Coleen Power |
| Date | 18:12:07, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | "A different person." Senator Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead on behalf of the Solentian Democratic Alliance. |
| Date | 18:14:43, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | Right you are quite quickly losing my patience. |
| Date | 18:16:26, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | "We have told you before, we would not support Mr. Toynbee becoming hereditory Head of State, as did the Crown Party. We thus proposed Lord Belisarius, as a noble, as a compromise. We both accepted. It is only your party that has missed this rather important detail." Senator Asbjørn Holm, CMP Senatorial Lead on behalf of the Solentian Democratic Alliance. |
| Date | 18:19:29, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | Well, we will miss it again then. We oppose that proposal. Coleen Power |
| Date | 18:23:33, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | OOC- AMENDED. |
| Date | 18:23:42, August 16, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | ---On the Head of State--- Proposed: Lord Belisarius to become Head of State |
| Date | 02:12:41, August 17, 2010 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | Until we can agree (2/3rds of us) on running " " (blank) respectively for HoS, and win the office, then run through the candidate, this will continue to be a problem. We can't vote for this as Mr President has made his opinion very clear that he will not sit in a hereditary position. |
| Date | 09:08:48, August 17, 2010 CET | From | Social Justice Party | To | Debating the Constitutional debate |
| Message | The SDLP would only support article 1 of this proposal. We again restate that we shall never agree to a hereditary president. Keith Magnusson Leader of the SDLP in the Senate |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 18 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 72 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 10 |
| Random fact: Players using inactive accounts and/or accounts from outside nations may only propose bills and/or contribute to discussions, whether IC (in-character) or OOC (out-of-character) with the general consent of the players in the nation. |
| Random quote: "We are told that this is an odious and unpopular tax. I never knew a tax that was not odious and unpopular with the people who paid it." - John Sherman |