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: Court order: Calling of the constitutional court
Details
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: September 3663
Description[?]:
| By the name of the people of the Imperium Selucianum I hereby declare: The KLP, in person of Florian Crassus, has obtained a restraining order by the district court of Auroria No. 73829 to be executed by the government: 1. The constutitonal court has to be called in immidiately to clarifiy the lawfulness of the follwing recently passed laws and conventions: 1.1 The declaration of the special situation/continuation of the special situation and the question raised by Mr Florian Crassus 1.2 The laws regarding to : Plebis Scitum: Lex Servilia de Hosiis and the relation to the human rights charta 1.3 The Bill: Concilia Plebis and its affect on the constitution or whether it is constitutional As long as there is no definite decision of the constitutional court on these issues, the execution of the laws is stopped. Flavius Interregnum, Chief preator of the destrict court Auroria |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:49:01, May 04, 2014 CET | From | Factio Plebeia Democratica | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | Composition of the High Court Provincially appointed praetors: UC: 2 praetors KLP: 2 praetors FPD: 1 praetor Chief Justice (appointed by Justice Minister): UC: 1 praetor Appointed by Imperator: UC: 1 praetor Appointed by smallest party: FPD: 1 praetor Total amount of praetors: UC: 4 praetors FPD: 2 praetors KLP: 2 praetors |
| Date | 17:41:03, May 04, 2014 CET | From | Factio Plebeia Democratica | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | Honourable Praetors, The FPD fraction in the Constitutional Court (namely Iulia Calpurnia, Caius Cornelius, Marcus Tullius) will present its response to the objections raised by Flavius Interregnum. 1. In what concerns the declaration of the special situation, the FPD fraction finds that the objections brought by Mr. Crassus are not in line with the constitutional practice of Selucia. The Emergency Law Overhaul (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=363960) states that the Special Situation is declared via a 2/3-majority in the legislative and with the approval of the head of state, both conditions being fulfilled in the July 3657 calling of a Special Situation (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=407127), initiated by the Imperator and passed by the Senate with a constitutional majority. Additionally Special Situation legislation states that a Special Situation ends only by approval of the legislative; there is no mention of any effect on the status of the Special Situation that a change in the governing majority while the Special Situation is in effect may have. There is therefore no reason for the Special Situation declared in July 3657 to have ended with the February 3660 elections. In what concerns the possibility of arrest without warrant during a special situation, we find that there is precedent for such actions to occur. In July 3659 the Imperator, using the Special Situation legislation as justification, ordered police to arrest suspicious people without an arrest warrant, as announced during the debate on the Lampronian Law on Military (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=407385). The violation of human rights enshrined in the Human Rights Charter is permitted under the Constitutional Amendment on Executive Orders in an Emergency (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=363962). In regards to the third point raised by Mr. Crassus, current legislation states that it is the Princeps Senatus, not the Imperator, that takes command of the armed forces during a Special Situation, in coordination with the head of state. However, as the position of Princeps Senatus, the former head of government, was abolished, the Constitutional Amendment on Emergency passed in May 3127 (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=319415) states that the Minister of Defence takes command of the armed forces, after consulting with the head of state. 2. In what concerns the Servillian Law on Hosians (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=407635), we find that law to be fully constitutional, both in terms of passed laws and precedent. Precedent established that religious rights of certain groups can be limited; prior to the passing of the Servillian Law on Hosians, all religions with the exception of the Selucian Patriarchal Church were banned. Further, we note that the Servillian Law on Hosians does not impact the right of Hosians to worship in private; rather, it limits their freedom of association and bans organized Hosian groups. Such limitations have occurred in the past, with both religious and political organizations having been declared illegal and forcibly dismantled by the state. 3. Regarding the Plebeian Councils, we find their establishment to be constitutional as an expression of the freedom of association, as guaranteed by Article 17:of the Human Rights Charter. Further, we find that the Senate of Selucia was in breach of Article 21 of the same Charter, which guarantees the right of all Selucian citizens to freely and directly take part in the government of Selucia and demands that the will of the people be the basis of the authority of government. As Selucia was, at the time of the establishment of the first Plebeian Council, governed under a non-democratic single party regime, we find that the Senate was not an institution democratically representing the will of the people, hence the necessity of establishing Plebeian Councils as a form of direct democracy. Further, we find that the requirement of genuine elections established by Section 3 of Article 21 was violated during the KLP single-party regime. Iulia Calpurnia |
| Date | 17:42:14, May 04, 2014 CET | From | Factio Plebeia Democratica | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | (OOC: Oops, I accidentally wrote in another name for my praetors; Marcus Tullius does not exist) |
| Date | 18:17:09, May 05, 2014 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | The KLP nominates Nimanius Crassus and Julius Lutetia as their preators. Judge Lutetia: As far as I can see there is one preator too much, as the number is only seven. Which preators does the UC nominate? |
| Date | 13:31:22, May 06, 2014 CET | From | Factio Plebeia Democratica | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | The High Court Act (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=391818) explicitly states that there are eight praetors sitting in this court. Iulia Calpurnia |
| Date | 15:29:25, May 06, 2014 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | However, still the judges of the UC are missing. Lutetia |
| Date | 06:31:43, May 07, 2014 CET | From | Unio Communistarum | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | Our jugdes will be: Julius Caudex Iulia Polivia Flavius Publianus Marcus Ausureus OOC: I'm sorry fr being so late,my job is consuming way too much time lately |
| Date | 18:25:49, May 07, 2014 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | Lutetia: With permission I would suggest, that we should put all the laws in question together in one process, meaning that we wait until the latest laws are passed. As i hear from the KLP they also want to go to the court about that. Luteteia, preator |
| Date | 19:23:01, May 07, 2014 CET | From | Factio Plebeia Democratica | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | This is merely a delaying tactic by the KLP as a desperate measure against the adoption of legitimate laws. Now that the quorum of this court has been reached, the three objections raised by Flavius Interregnum shall be voted upon. The FPD votes NAY to all three objections. Iulia Calpurnia, Praetor |
| Date | 19:23:35, May 07, 2014 CET | From | Factio Plebeia Democratica | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | *FPD faction |
| Date | 20:54:21, May 07, 2014 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | First of all we want a fair trail on these subjects and also to bring up the other points against it. By the way, the court is in fact wrong seated according to that: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=387532 This piece of law was passed and threfore is the groundwork for the court, not the suggestion by the KLP which has not such legitimation. I warn the other judges to vote in this direction as such a verdict could be easily overturned as he current seating is not valid. Lutetetia |
| Date | 20:58:47, May 07, 2014 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | This is in fact true, because the evidence presented by the hournable preators (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=391818) has never been passed, but is still in debate and consequently cannot be used as base for this court session. I therefore call on the government to constitute a court according to the rules. |
| Date | 20:59:13, May 07, 2014 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | Nimanius Crassus |
| Date | 21:06:25, May 07, 2014 CET | From | Factio Plebeia Democratica | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | OOC: Oh, sorry, I thought that one was the most up to date legislation on the Hight Court, didn't know it wasn't passed. In that case, UC would have to give up one praetor, the one nominated by the Imperator, So the breakdown is UC - 3, FPD- 2, KLP - 2. IC: If the KLP praetors wish to discuss the other issues, they may call the Court again. This session of the High Court was convened to deal specifically with the three points raised by Flavius Interregnum, on which there is an ongoing vote, and the KLP and UC praetors are invited to cast their respective votes on the matter. Iulia Calpurnia, Praetor |
| Date | 21:11:05, May 07, 2014 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | Again, dear collegeues, we cannot institute a court session by desregarding the laws. Every decision we take on a flawed groundwork is invalid an can be easily chellenged. We want to resolve matters once and for all. This is what the constitutional court is here. Therefore the government must institute the court according to the rules. Nimanius Crassus |
| Date | 21:15:20, May 07, 2014 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | By the way, the justice minister did not call a chief justice and only the chief justice is the first preator which is leading the sessions and not one of us normal preators. Luteteia, preator |
| Date | 21:16:13, May 07, 2014 CET | From | Factio Plebeia Democratica | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | OOC: Ugh, do we really have to create another one of these threads? I honestly didn't know what the most up-to-date legislation was. Can't we just pretend that one of the UC praetors isn't there? |
| Date | 21:18:25, May 07, 2014 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | OOC. Yes we have. accuracy goes before everything...soryy I am german ;) |
| Date | 21:21:25, May 07, 2014 CET | From | Factio Plebeia Democratica | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | OOC: Ok, fine, make another thread then. I honestly don't really see the point of all this to be honest, as Communists have a clear majority in the Court and will approve of anything Communists pass. Unless you do this just to harass and delay our actions, which I'm ok with. |
| Date | 21:24:23, May 07, 2014 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | OOC: You know, i see this a nice experiment and would like to see how it develops. And of course, i try to delay it, i believe that would a natural behaviour of a party beeing in power fo 60 years or so without any challenge.... |
| Date | 21:24:51, May 07, 2014 CET | From | LP | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | OOC: You know, i see this a nice experiment and would like to see how it develops. And of course, i try to delay it, i believe that would a natural behaviour of a party beeing in power fo 60 years or so without any challenge.... |
| Date | 21:29:29, May 07, 2014 CET | From | Factio Plebeia Democratica | To | Debating the Court order: Calling of the constitutional court |
| Message | OOC: Ok, sure. Can you put this to vote then so that it doesn't clog the debate section and so that its content isn't lost? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 645 |
| Random fact: When forming a cabinet, try to include as few parties as possible, while still obtaining a majority of the seats. |
| Random quote: Henceforth, the current system of first and second class stamps, where the rich can pay to have their mail delivered faster than the poor, shall be BANNED. There shall be only one class of mail delivery, and ALL mail shall travel at the SAME speed for EVERYBODY. There can be no class discrimination in the People's Post Office! There must be the SAME class of mail service FOR ALL! ~ Friedrich Pfeiffer General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Party |