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: War Declaration Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Republican 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: October 3797
Description[?]:
| This act will reform the current situation with declaring war on organizations, nations, etc. Section I. Short Title This Act shall be known and recognized as 'War Declaration Act of 3796.' Section II. President's Powers The President is given certain powers in declaring war. He/She can not declare war without the consent from the Kokkai and the Security Council. The President must present a statement to the Kokkai, establishing the address 48 hours in advance. The address must include a reason of why war is needed given evidence to support the issue, and a form of verification. Section III. Declaring on Organizations If attacked by an organization, the President must address the Kokkai after 48 hours of the attack. He will be given the option to propae war during his address, or after meeting with the Security Council. The Kokkai will be given 4 months to debate, and 4 months to vote. For the proposal to pass, 75% should vote yes. Once the proposal is passed, or if, the Security Council, which is the Cabinet, will vote on the issue. If passed by the Council, the Governors will vote, and then the President has the last word of voting. If he votes no, the war is a no go unless it gets override by the Kokkai. In an organizational war, the governors have control over their state National Guard, and police officers. They may fight in the war if the Govwrnor says so. The military will only get involved if called on by the state, or if the state is losing the battle. The President may only deploy 50,000-100,000 troops to a state at a time. Section IV. Declaring National War The nation had the right to declare war on another nation if attacked or unsettled violent business. The Sessei or the President may propose a declaration of war to the Kokkai. The President may address the Kokkai when proposing this, but the Sessei will do it as well since he/she will have supervise the votes. If passed by the Kokkai, the Security Council will vote on it. I'd passed by them, the President will have the last word and vote. If the President votes no, the proposal is dead. The Kokkai and the Security Council will have to override the President's decision. If overrides, the proposal is passed. During a war like this, the President has control over all military personnel, which includes the National Guard. The state will only have control over the police and will only be allowed to use it if the President is in need of the use. Section V. Conclusion This assessment of war is to keep the President and the Kokkai from having too much power in when declaring war or using the military for unnecessary purposes. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:15:21, February 05, 2015 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the War Declaration Reform Act |
| Message | Members of the Kokkai, This bill was proposed by the President. You have until the end of February to debate, then I will put it up for voting. Sessei Sessei Ligeia Paulina |
| Date | 21:07:43, February 05, 2015 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the War Declaration Reform Act |
| Message | Mrs. Sessei, The State having control ovwr the National Guard during a war? That shouldn't happen even if it's an organizational war. It is completely the President's duty to control all military fields, including the national guard. The State should not have a right in war or any war at that. We don't know who we have and they don't know what their up against since they don't have complete technology like the federal government has. There is no Intel going in the state whatsoever. That also gives the State governor the power to do strategies by himself and that is not a good idea. That is why I say no to the organizational war protocols. James Winston Kokkai of Sekowo |
| Date | 21:14:44, February 05, 2015 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the War Declaration Reform Act |
| Message | Mrs Sessei, I totally disagree with Mr. Winston. Giving the State control over the National Guard during an organizational war is a great idea. That relieves a little stress off of the federal government and the President. We have to realize that an organizational war is not necessary unless the Governors want the war, so. They should take full reaponsibility towards that. That is why the President put that in the bill. We need to let the State be active in the government instead of being an out cast in the government. Yoshi Lee Kokkai of Sekowo |
| Date | 21:20:18, February 05, 2015 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the War Declaration Reform Act |
| Message | Mrs Sessei, Organizational war? Do you mean terrorist war or unnecessary war? That's what it sounds like to me. We can take that part out of the bill because it is soo unnecssary for that. I support the rest of the bill Sarah Tion Kokkai of Sekowo |
| Date | 21:35:27, February 05, 2015 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the War Declaration Reform Act |
| Message | Mrs Sessei, Organizational war? Do you mean terrorist war or unnecessary war? That's what it sounds like to me. We can take that part out of the bill because it is soo unnecssary for that. I support the rest of the bill Sarah Tion Kokkai of Sekowo |
| Date | 21:37:14, February 05, 2015 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the War Declaration Reform Act |
| Message | Kokkai Members, I will end the debate there. There will be no revision. We shall vote now. Sessei |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |
| yes | Total Seats: 500 | |
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made" - Otto von Bismark |