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: Defense of the Republic Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Imperial Kalistan Party
Status[?]: passed
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: November 2053
Description[?]:
| This bill shall allow the National Assembly, acting in defense of the Federal Republic of Kalistan, grant the right to ban any organization and declare such organization a criminal element by two-thirds majority vote, for any organization that shall: 1) Support terrorist organizations, militias, and similar 2) Have a platform in open opposition to the Republic and The People of Kalistan 3) Be in Active Attempt of any aforementioned acts. OOC: This is a roleplaying bill that would be sent to the Admins. It will take a majority vote to ban an organization as being criminal or unconstitutional and that will be sent to the admins. This is mostly for roleplaying like when dealing with parties outside of Kalistani politics. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:30:54, May 13, 2005 CET | From | Pansexual Peace Party -- FNORD | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | We do not agree. This bill, while admirable in spirit, opens a Pandora's box of restrictive legislation. We feel that major revisions are needed to prevent the erosion of civil rights and liberties. |
| Date | 21:37:11, May 13, 2005 CET | From | Imperial Kalistan Party | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | OOC: it's not unusual in Western Europe to have a process of banning extremist parties that advocate extreme racism and dictatorship. |
| Date | 08:25:03, May 15, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | We most definately do not agree with this. There could be all sorts of political maneuverings and behind-the-scenes talks to declare a political organization that is a thorn in the side of several of the major parties as "terrorist". If this must go into bill-form, the Federal Rights party demands that the "declaration" vote be changed to a 2/3rds vote. This is no laughing matter. |
| Date | 04:00:14, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Pansexual Peace Party -- FNORD | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | (OOC: Only constitutional Amendments have a 2/3rds vote requirement. All others are pleurality or majority votes.) |
| Date | 04:17:44, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | (OOC: Technically, declaring a group as a terrorist organization wouldn't be a normal bill. So, a 2/3rds vote could be permitted. But yeah, I know. This was my first argument.) |
| Date | 06:47:06, May 16, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | We agree that this is a Tricky Topic, and while the intention is good, it is a dangerous route to take. We are leaning strongly towards no at this point. |
| Date | 22:36:06, May 16, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | Please note that no nations have agreed on this resolution thus far. Is it nessicary to send this to vote? |
| Date | 00:43:27, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | OOC: Nations=Parties |
| Date | 03:14:54, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Imperial Kalistan Party | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | This bill has been revised to two-thirds vote being necessary to ban an organization as either terrorist, criminal, or a threat to the Republic OOC: ;-) |
| Date | 05:02:33, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | The FRP has not yet reached a consensus, and will further test the waters before it casts its vote. Until then, we abstain. |
| Date | 18:45:29, May 17, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | While the TDPK has long been an advocate for stronger measures against terrorist groups, Article 2 poses a rather large problem. Suppose that, the NDP were to win a 2/3 majority government. Who defines what is "a platform in open opposition to the Republic and The People of Kalistan"? Due to the vague description in this bill, the TDPK can only conclude that it must be the government that decides. Is it really that much of a stretch to suppose that a 2/3 majority government could declare all other parties terrorist organizations? Remove or clarify article 2, and you have our support. |
| Date | 19:24:29, May 17, 2005 CET | From | Neo-Libertarian Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Defense of the Republic Bill |
| Message | The FRP has decided that certain measures must be made to keep our nation secure. However, we agree with the TDPK in that Article Two is that ambiguous. It would be in the interests of our Republic for it to be altered, or, preferably, removed. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 343 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 44 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com and http://www.behindthename.com/random are great resources for coming up with character names from unfamiliar cultures. |
| Random quote: "He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." - Aristotle |