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: Judicial Reform Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: People of Freedom (P.F)
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: February 3721
Description[?]:
Proposal. Bill to create independent Justice system. Enforcing laws amongst the public. Reform of laws to support the system. Adding to the responsibilities of the Justice Minister. Phillipa Corazona Minister of Justice |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The right to appeal against a judgement rendered by a court.
Old value:: Judgements may only be appealed against for grave procedural errors.
Current: Every person has the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court.
Proposed: Every person has the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's position towards the administration of law.
Old value:: There are no courts, the Head of State will determine what's right or wrong.
Current: There are regional courts that have jurisdiction over questions of regional law and national courts that have jurisdiction over questions of national law.
Proposed: There are regional courts that have jurisdiction over questions of regional law and national courts that have jurisdiction over questions of national law.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Voting rights of criminals.
Old value:: Criminals released from jail are allowed to vote after a certain period of time.
Current: Criminals are always allowed to vote, regardless of whether they are in jail or not.
Proposed: Criminals released from jail are allowed to vote.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 21:08:13, August 29, 2014 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Act. |
Message | Mrs. Speaker, again, we believe that these propositions are very general. To reform the Justice Department, we would need more than just a few proposals. We suggest you think this through before sending this to vote. If this bill will be accepted, we'll be in trouble concerning Justice. Also, we believe Mrs. President is more than able enough to handle judicial matters, as stated under the current law. Albert Dewitte Judicial Advisor for LNC |
Date | 21:33:48, August 29, 2014 CET | From | People of Freedom (P.F) | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Act. |
Message | Mr Speaker. We acknowledge your view point and ask the president to further comment. Phillipa Corazona Minister of Justice |
Date | 05:14:10, August 30, 2014 CET | From | Social Libermuns Party | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Act. |
Message | Mrs. Speaker, We are more than happy with the first two articles. With the third, we have always found that the right to vote is not something that should be stripped away. A citizen is a citizen. The LNC makes a point in the following resolutions that will need to passed concerning this, but as it is Phillipa Corazona's major concern to take care of Justice, I do not take issue with this bill. ~ Rachel Roy The President |
Date | 13:57:28, August 30, 2014 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Act. |
Message | Mrs. Speaker, we will get in trouble with this law. Also, criminals would be given the right to vote right away? Just like you want to give everyone citizenship and allow everyone in our military? Well, it makes me wonder who your voters are. Paul Murphy-Spaak LNC chairman |
Date | 16:00:24, August 30, 2014 CET | From | People of Freedom (P.F) | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Act. |
Message | Mr. Speaker. There will be no trouble unless the opposition is planing trouble? We will create laws to fill in where there may be gaps in this legislation. The LanC should not worry. This transition to a democratic administration of justice can only be good for the Great Republic. The LNC is aware that our voters are all Lodamese citizens. To think otherwise is just propaganda. Phillipa Corazona Minister of Justice |
Date | 16:14:43, August 30, 2014 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Act. |
Message | Mrs. Speaker, we believe it to be odd to vote on certain laws, and then stating afterwards to 'create some laws to fill gaps' somewhere in the future. Isn't that what our Presidium is all about? To find, create and vote such measures, so there would be laws with no gaps at all. That is what we mean with trouble. There is an outlining for a structure in this law, but there is no structure whatsoever. Paul Murphy-Spaak LNC chairman |
Date | 23:52:37, August 30, 2014 CET | From | Social Libermuns Party | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Act. |
Message | Mr. Speaker, I do not see the problem with the laws, and do not see where any gaps would be. We have regular courts at both the Provincial and National level. We then have appeal courts for both the Provincial and National Regular courts. Over that, we have the current set up to fall back on, The Office of the President, which would deal with very involved cases. As for Article 3, be glad that I was not the one to draft the bill, for I believe a human with a beating heart has the right to vote. We view it as a basic human right that should be given when there is a democratic system. The needs and views of the prisoners should be taken into account, and the best way to do this is to let them vote. ~ Eliseus Warwick SLP Rep for Justice |
Date | 07:55:09, August 31, 2014 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Act. |
Message | Mr. Speaker, there seem to be no gaps... Well, the SLP representative for justice has just come up with some information we didn't have. While the law speaks only of national and regional courts, now we hear there will be both regular and appeal courts, with the Presidential Office as a back up. All of this isn't stated in the initial proposal. Also, what happens with the Supreme Court? Will there be municipal courts? Will the regional courts be controlled by a national entity? Albert Dewitte Judicial Expert for LNC |
Date | 16:48:48, August 31, 2014 CET | From | Social Libermuns Party | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Act. |
Message | Mr. Speaker, There will be no municipal courts. That is unnecessary spending. Anything at that level will be directed towards Lodamun's new police force to handle the dispute, unless there is sufficient cause to direct it towards provincial courts. Provincial courts are their own entity as they represent the region of which they reside. The Office of the President reigns Supreme. it is in essence what one would consider a Supreme Court. There is no appeal to the President's decision. We do not like to speak for other parties, so if the LDP would give their thoughts, this would be most agreeable. ~ Eliseus Warwick Minister of Justice |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes | Total Seats: 375 | |||
no | Total Seats: 224 | |||
abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Zardugal is a nation based on the old Byzantine Empire, with a modern twist and the Esperanto language. Zardugal is located on the continent of Majatra. |
Random quote: "We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together, and if we are to live together we have to talk." - Eleanor Roosevelt |