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: Free Courts Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Communist Party (DCP) (LL)
Status[?]: passed
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: May 3466
Description[?]:
| To ensure a right to appeal, and to ensure that regional laws remain uniform with federal laws and the constitution, hereby: |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's position towards the administration of law.
Old value:: There are regional courts that have jurisdiction over questions of regional law and national courts that have jurisdiction over questions of national law.
Current: There are regional courts, but decisions of regional courts may be appealed to national courts (if the right to appeal exists).
Proposed: There are regional courts, but decisions of regional courts may be appealed to national courts (if the right to appeal exists).
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:00:44, April 06, 2013 CET | From |  Liberal Party | To | Debating the Free Courts Act |
| Message | Can someone please explain the difference between the two? I believe the current value allows for the right to appeal. |
| Date | 12:39:34, April 06, 2013 CET | From | Democratic Communist Party (DCP) (LL) | To | Debating the Free Courts Act |
| Message | In my understanding it wouldn't, at least not as it comes to law. I think under the current that if a regional law was out of line with the constitution, but a regional court found that it was not, the ruling could not be appealed to the national courts, which could lead to some serious issues. |
| Date | 00:10:08, April 07, 2013 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Free Courts Act |
| Message | Yes, it basically sets up two different court systems where violations concerning a state law can only be determined within the state, and violations concerning federal law as a whole can only be determined by the federal courts. You can appeal, but only to the higher court in that system. (State Circuit Court > State Appellate Court > State Supreme Court) or ..... (Federal Circuit Court > Federal Appellate Court > Supreme Court of Ikradon) |
| Date | 00:13:42, April 07, 2013 CET | From | SCI Libertarian-Socialist Syndicate (LL) | To | Debating the Free Courts Act |
| Message | In the proposed version, it would look something like this: (State Circuit Court > State Appellate Court > State Supreme Court > Supreme Court of Ikradon) .....but would also include sub-courts underneath the SCo-Ikradon dealing with non-state issues, like maritime law, inter-state disputes, diplomatic issues, treaty law, etc. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 354 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 246 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 150 |
| Random fact: The voters enjoy active parties who take upon themselves the initiative to create laws. |
| Random quote: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain |