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: An Act to Amend Article 2 §B and §C of the Supreme Court of Solentia Act of 2943
Details
Submitted by[?]: Chann National Party (CNP)
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: May 3353
Description[?]:
| Original: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=292015 (Needs 2/3 to pass, or 284 votes) (A2, B) -------------- The Justices shall serve terms of 10 years effective on the date of approval on behalf of the Senate. (A2, B, a) -------------- In the event that a Justice resigns his post (OOC: Or the party controlling goes inactive), his position becomes immediately available for replacement by the Supreme President at time of resignation. The Justice will assume his seat immediately and only serve the remainder of the original Justice's term. (A2, C) -------------- The Chief Justice is appointed alongside the other justices and is directly chosen by the Supreme President and approved by the Senate. (A2, C, a) -------------- The Chief Justice shall appoint a Clerk, who may be any Solentian citizen of his choosing, whose duties shall be defined in Article 5 of this Act. Each Chief Justice may choose a new Clerk at any point during his term, and the Clerk's contact information must be published in the official log and register of the Supreme Court. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:22:33, May 10, 2012 CET | From |  Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the An Act to Amend Article 2 §B and §C of the Supreme Court of Solentia Act of 2943 |
| Message | "No justification has been granted for any of these changes. They are mindlessly proposed without cause. The DRP has not even been in existance when the Supreme Court has been active. Why then would we believe they have due reason to want to see the process changed?" Maxwell Havers, Secretary of State for Justice |
| Date | 03:50:24, May 11, 2012 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the An Act to Amend Article 2 §B and §C of the Supreme Court of Solentia Act of 2943 |
| Message | OOC: It is a matter of common sense. Particracy does not offer us the kind of system where we can go as in depth as we would like in the roleplay, ESPECIALLY in terms of staggered term limits and re-appointments. For this kind of game, it is easier and more sensible to have set terms where all the Justices are appointed at once and leave the post at the same time. Offer up a valid way to keep track of the staggered term limits and I will reconsider. |
| Date | 06:04:35, May 11, 2012 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the An Act to Amend Article 2 §B and §C of the Supreme Court of Solentia Act of 2943 |
| Message | OOC: This is a matter which would be a lot easier to discuss on something like the Solentian chatzy that we used to use, and I'd move that we arrange a time where we can all get together and discuss this, but I will do my best to explain it now. When we created the original act, it was entirely well debated and discussed; every aspect was subject to scrutiny and all of that debate is part of the historical record. I doubt you've read through it all, and I'm impressed if you did, but I'd advocate a thorough reading of the entire discussion if you're going to try changing it now. This act had a LOT of OOC work go into it from several parties that were in Solentia for YEARS in real life, so any change should be made, out of respect for our work, with due deliberation. http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=291993 Much debate is also found here. All of that said, and assuming you've read the full debate at this point, we'll continue. Since term limits are at issue here, that is what I will address first. They MUST remain staggered. Allow me to wax philosophical, if I may, on the original intent of the Court as an RP device. First, what the Court is NOT: The Court is NOT a political forum. The Court is NOT a body that should include inexperienced parties in its number, unless they have shown great promise and earned a position. The Court is NOT an arm for one Supreme President to extend control over the Federal Republic. Next, what the Court IS: The Court IS a means to promote roleplay and discussion of legislation, as well as to encourage the development and maintenance of a system of precedents in Solentian law. The Court IS a means to preserve the influence of historically powerful parties over a period of time; it was our solution to the fickle (and unrealistic) nature of the Solentian elections. Now, all of that said, the issues you bring up were really the REASON we created the Court in the first place. A staggered term is NECESSARY. One Supreme President CANNOT be allowed to place the entire bench of the Supreme Court. That would entirely defeat the apolitical intent of its creation by causing it to be the soapbox of one Supreme President, it would allow inexperienced parties to burst there way into control of the Court simply by winning the Supreme Presidency and a majority in the Senate, and it would allow the Supreme President almost unchecked control of the Judicial Branch which is supposed to be separate from the Executive. While it may not be entirely efficient, the stagger and term length was implemented an important purpose: Each Supreme President can only place a certain number of the Justices. This maintains the influence of previous Supreme Presidents and their respective parties/players for a longer period, and allows tradition to be adequately defended against parties-of-the-moment that come in and would destroy otherwise. The influence of these older parties is not permanent and to maintain their position on the Court they must be at least semi-successful on the political stage too. Basically, the point is that elections in game are broken. The Crowns could reactivate tomorrow and win a massive number of seats; it happens often. If we had a strong and sitting Supreme Court, however, he would NOT be able to take that immediately like he takes the Senate or SP. The Court is meant to be a conservative body. Slow to react. If it is entirely replaced at once every 10 years, then any party who happens to be in power on the 10 year mark gets total control of it for 10 years. I realize that it might be difficult to keep track of when placements are due, etc., but seriously, give it a shot. We haven't had a full court, or even placements to the court, since this whole spurt of new activity. Give this system a shot. We've made it work in the past and our one RP with the Court was honestly some of the most fun I've had in Particracy. I appreciate that you may want to make your mark on the legislation, but I assure you, it's the way it is for a reason. Try and use it as is and if you find it to be broken at THAT point, then we can discuss amendments. I hope I explained well. If not I will address whatever else you have in another post. |
| Date | 23:55:00, August 19, 2012 CET | From | Kansarätten (House of Kansar) | To | Debating the An Act to Amend Article 2 §B and §C of the Supreme Court of Solentia Act of 2943 |
| Message | OOC: MODS, PLEASE SEE REQUEST HERE: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&p=42294#p42294 PRIOR TO DELETING. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 223 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 202 |
| Random fact: RP laws follow the same passing rules as in-game variable laws. Laws that are not of a constitutional nature require a simple majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. Laws that are of a constitutional nature require a 2/3 majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. RP laws may be abolished a simple majority vote this applies to ANY RP law. |
| Random quote: "I don't believe you need to be bitch to succeed in business" - Lucinda Redwood, former Luthorian-Dorvish businesswoman |