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: Federalist Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic-Republican Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 3061
Description[?]:
| An act to move towards a more federal and less unitary government. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards the funding of libraries.
Old value:: The national government controls a vast and comprehensive system of public libraries.
Current: Funding and operation of libraries is left entirely to local governments.
Proposed: Funding and operation of libraries is left entirely to local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on the separation of the police and the military.
Old value:: The military acts as a de-facto police force, with powers of arrest.
Current: A civilian police force is in place, backed up by the military.
Proposed: A civilian police force is in place and the military is not allowed to play any part in it.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards police presence.
Old value:: The police patrol public property at all times.
Current: The police patrol public property at all times.
Proposed: Presence of the police is left to the local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:44:58, January 12, 2011 CET | From | Constitutionalist Imperial League (IA) | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, This has nothing to do with federalism. While the CIL is warm towards the extension of authority to the duchies, this has nothing to do with that. I yield. |
| Date | 18:40:43, January 12, 2011 CET | From | Democratic-Republican Party | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | Speaker, If we were allowed more proposals, we would have the bill finished by now. Article One: The government should not be requring citizens to hold identity cards. This most certainly is an issue of federalism, as this is the national government requiring cards. Article two: The law currently also states that the development of police forces is left to local governments. However, if the military is the de facto police, then they are trampling on the rights of the local governments. I yield. |
| Date | 21:02:58, January 12, 2011 CET | From | Imperial Aristocratic League | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We oppose article 1 and believe people should be required to carry them. It is an issue we plan on re-visiting. Article 2 however we would be willing to compromise on. The LPP believes there should be a separate national police force not associated with military. While the military has done a fine job, we just donlt believe a military present on the streets is necessary. we would be willing to work with the DRP and others to accomplish this. I yield. |
| Date | 22:45:45, January 12, 2011 CET | From | Freedom and Revolution Party | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We support the proposals of the Democratic-Republican party. On Article One, we of course support because Luthori people are not children, are not criminals, are not animals. The people of Luthori are an honorable and noble race of sapient adults, and should be treated as such. Any person who supports such a concept as identification cards clearly does not hold the people of Luthori in high regard, viewing them all as either thugs or children. We cannot stand for this attitude, and will not tolerate it. It is our stance that anyone who cannot respect something simple as "not treating the people like criminals and children" is not fit for office, or any leadership position whatsoever. On Article Two, we support the change much for the same reason as Article One. The military is a force to be used to defend against foreign aggressors; that has historically been its design since the dawn of civilization. The military as a police force? What this states is that Luthori is not a free nation of people, but an occupied nation. Yes, Luthori is, in essence, under military occupation by a foreign power. This must be stopped at once. I yield. |
| Date | 14:48:05, January 13, 2011 CET | From | Democratic-Republican Party | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | Speaker, We have split article one off in regards to identity cards and placed it in another bill. If this bill is acceptable to other parties, we will move it to a vote. I yield. |
| Date | 18:48:15, January 13, 2011 CET | From | Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker Why take the risks? I yield |
| Date | 20:16:31, January 13, 2011 CET | From | Democratic-Republican Party | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | Speaker, What risks? I yield. |
| Date | 20:27:55, January 13, 2011 CET | From | Imperial Aristocratic League | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Articles 1 and 3 are acceptable. Article 2 though is a problem. While we support the separation of the military and the police we do believe the police should be handled by the national government. Our problem with local government control of the police force is that some cities may focus on some areas of crime while another area is disregarded. With a national police force will focus on all areas and have the necessary fund to do so. OOC: is it possible to create new cabinet positions? If so we might be able to make a new position for a national police force. |
| Date | 13:40:16, January 14, 2011 CET | From | Democratic-Republican Party | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | ooc: There is an option under the justice section as to whether the police is local, national, or both. |
| Date | 13:46:14, January 14, 2011 CET | From | Constitutionalist Imperial League (IA) | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | OOC: No unfortunately that's not possible. IC: Mr. Speaker, We believe an explanation on the operation of policing in Luthori is in order. Right now, each earldom has its own constabulary which is in charge of maintaining local law and order. Duchies may or may not decide to have their own police forces to deal with ducal level crime. The Imperial government does not have a police force per say. However the Constitution provides for the existence of the Imperial Office of Domestic Security. The IODS has many branches which include one which deals specifically with inter-duchy crime. Furthermore, Luthorian law does not provide for clear differentiations between "civilian" and "military" security forces in the same way as there are no such things as civilian control over the military or military control over civilian life. Such distinctions are not made in Luthori because technically, every noble is a "soldier" and every commoner can be drafted into the military and all subjects are required at all times to protect the realm. Similarly, the military has no specific duties to protect the country against foreigners, its duty, like that of the IODS' inter-ducal forces, is simply to protect the realm (while the duty of an earldom's constabulary will be to defend that specific earldom). Having explained this and for the sake of unity and compromise, we would be willing to support articles 1 and 3 and support an alternate version of article 2 whereas the police would be backed by the military. I yield the floor. |
| Date | 00:21:43, January 15, 2011 CET | From | Democratic-Republican Party | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | Speaker, The CIL is a false comrpomiser, as evidenced by their state support of non-compensation for lands siezed by eminent domain for corporations. I yield |
| Date | 01:00:41, January 15, 2011 CET | From | Imperial Aristocratic League | To | Debating the Federalist Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, While we support many parts of this bill we must cast a no vote. We would have liked to seen the Police have some backing of the military in extreme cases of rioting or violence and we again state our opposition to local control of the police forces. I yield. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 63 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 138 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When elections in a country are held, all bills in the voting phase are reset to the debate phase. |
| Random quote: "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980 |