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: Eminent Domain Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Reform 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: June 2149
Description[?]:
| We believe that the local governments should be allowed set their own eminent domain laws, because some regions may need to sieze private property for one reason or another. To balance this, the victim of eminent domain would be able to set the price of compensation. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may not seize private property.
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Proposed: The policy regarding eminent domain is left to local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Eminent domain compensation (if eminent domain is legal).
Old value:: A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal.
Current: A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal.
Proposed: The victim of eminent domain determines just compensation.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:06:00, November 30, 2005 CET | From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Act |
| Message | Disagreed. |
| Date | 04:46:49, November 30, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Act |
| Message | No. |
| Date | 05:19:30, November 30, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Act |
| Message | We do not agree. It is never right to seize private property, regardless of the reason. |
| Date | 11:58:32, November 30, 2005 CET | From |  Aloria Green Socialist Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Act |
| Message | We agree with the LCP. |
| Date | 19:50:06, November 30, 2005 CET | From | Capitalism Now! Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Act |
| Message | Were against this. |
| Date | 23:11:46, November 30, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Act |
| Message | - Article II cannot guarentee protection against Article I. - If the regions are going to have the right to legislate Article I, they should also have the right to legislate Article II |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 347 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 53 |
| Random fact: The majority of nations in Particracy are "Culturally Protected" with an established cultural background. Only the "Culturally Open" nations are not bound by the rules surrounding culture. The Cultural Protocols Index should be consulted for more information about the cultural situation of each nation. |
| Random quote: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud |