Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: November 5460
Next month in: 01:56:14
Server time: 10:03:45, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date03:50:51, September 10, 2015 CET
FromCommunist Party of Darnussia
ToDebating the Judicial Reform Bill
MessageThe Communist Party will continue to oppose federalism and the attempted decentralisation of our country.

Date08:23:55, September 10, 2015 CET
FromZentrum
ToDebating the Judicial Reform Bill
MessageHonorable 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

Date13:56:32, September 10, 2015 CET
FromDemokrat Konservativen Partei (DKP)
ToDebating the Judicial Reform Bill
MessageDear 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

Date00:13:32, September 11, 2015 CET
FromZentrum
ToDebating the Judicial Reform Bill
MessageThe 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

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 55