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 Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Demokrat Konservativen Partei (DKP)
Status[?]: defeated
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: December 3905
Description[?]:
Our country should embrace its constituent nations differences and work to protect their particular institutions. Over the past decades, the central government took much power over them, to the point that they now don't have much powers left. More importantly, a simple vote from the Reichstag can easily strip them of those competencies and our national laws are often interpreted to deprive them of them. We are proposing a first step towards a federalization of our country. By making different courts for different matters. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's position towards the administration of law.
Old value:: There are regional courts, but decisions of regional courts may be appealed to national courts (if the right to appeal exists).
Current: There is a uniform system of courts across the nation.
Proposed: There are regional courts that have jurisdiction over questions of regional law and national courts that have jurisdiction over questions of national law.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 03:50:51, September 10, 2015 CET | From | Communist Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Bill |
Message | The Communist Party will continue to oppose federalism and the attempted decentralisation of our country. |
Date | 08:23:55, September 10, 2015 CET | From | Zentrum | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Bill |
Message | Honorable Members, This bill jeopardises the coherence of our national judicial system, and the principle of sovereignty upon which this nation was founded. Vine Fynn, Erste Exekutive auf die Zentrum Kongress |
Date | 13:56:32, September 10, 2015 CET | From | Demokrat Konservativen Partei (DKP) | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Bill |
Message | Dear colleagues, We do not think the Zentrum is right in his assertion. Separating the courts between some courts having jurisdiction over central matters and some others having jurisdiction over regional matters is not at all an attack on sovereignty. It would be the contrary : we are recognizing the limited sovereignty each part of this country has. Doing this doesn't mean that there would be a tight border between regional and central courts, just that the regions could have a high degree of autonomy. Still, in case of disagreement about jurisdictions, the Supreme Court would still be able to take the most neutral possible decision. Siegmund Zieger, DKP spokesperson on Justice |
Date | 00:13:32, September 11, 2015 CET | From | Zentrum | To | Debating the Judicial Reform Bill |
Message | The principle of sovereignty is that the highest and final authority in the international and domestic arena is the state. This article would grant, as you specify, a limited amount of this final authority to local governments. The benefits, whatever they may be, appear to be outweighed by the costs of a patchwork legal system. We apologise for our clash of principles. Vine Fynn, Erste Exekutive auf die Zentrum Kongress |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes | Total Seats: 61 | ||||
no | Total Seats: 240 | ||||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
Random quote: "No man can outrun a bullet." - Idi Amin |