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: Juridical Guarantees Act (P1)
Details
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: July 4001
Description[?]:
| A motion to shift the retrograde Justice practices of our country. This is the first part of a series of legislation which will seek to turn our institutions in modern, democratic ones. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 2
Proposal[?] to change Government's policy towards the powers of the police.
Old value:: The police may arrest citizens for any reason.
Current: The police may arrest crime suspects.
Proposed: The police may arrest crime suspects.
Article 3
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:21:57, March 15, 2016 CET | From | Libertarian Solidarity | To | Debating the Juridical Guarantees Act (P1) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, we strongly support this bill. Hopefully, this time the attempt at a real democracy shall succeed! Cecil W. Monroe, Chair of Libertarian Solidarity |
| Date | 17:16:22, March 15, 2016 CET | From |  Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Juridical Guarantees Act (P1) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Will the proponents and supporters of this policy directive clearly explain how it will be funded? I can assure the Presidium that the current budget cannot handle these ridiculous proposals for introducing bourgeois courts. -- Joshua Fertig, Chairman of the GNRG |
| Date | 18:04:42, March 15, 2016 CET | From | Together! | To | Debating the Juridical Guarantees Act (P1) |
| Message | Mr Joshua Fertig, Although we do understand the limitations over the budget of our nation, the value of a more democratic Lodamun is hardly quantifiable in monetary terms. The Justice Department currently counts with a budget of 1bi LOD. This may seem insufficient, but given that there is no judicial structure currently in place, it is not hard to interpret these funds as underused. Should the provisions in place prove to be not enough to sustain a functioning system of courts, we would recommend a rise in corporate tax and/or a cut in our defense budget. However, Mr Fertig, we believe that once the ideological aspect of this issue has been settled and approved, the Presidium will not face opposition in determining profitable pragmatic solutions to fund said court system. -- Kristian H. Zackheim Chairman of Together! |
| Date | 18:48:30, March 15, 2016 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Juridical Guarantees Act (P1) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Please inform Kristian Zackheim that parliamentary procedure involves directly addressing you, and not Members of the Presidium. I will now reply to his statements. The current budget was only recently implemented, and it fits with the current laws. The Justice Ministry's funding had been reduced by over 88% in February 3996, so it is a ridiculous assumption to "interpret these funds as underused" - some countries have as high as 11 times what Lodamun spends on Justice. Kristian ackheim speaks of being "pragmatic" while suggesting that raising Corporate Tax is a possible method of having more money. Corporate Tax is currently 50%. Less than 10 years ago, it was 65%, but we did not get as much revenue from Corporate Tax as we get now. Raising Corporate Tax doesn't guarantee a raise in revenue; instead, corporations will leave and go to other countries, and there will be less of them to pay taxes and employ our citizens. Revenue from Corporate Tax would fall if we increase Corporate Tax, and revenue from Income Tax would also fall because of rising unemployment. It has been established that Kristian Zackheim lacks financial literacy. We ask that the Together! movement understand how the economy works, then they can come back and explain to us how they would fund this policy. We understand that the Together! movement is new to politics, but they should not get carried away by their confidence. Do not assume that there will be no opposition in determining solutions to fund this proposal; not everyone agrees with this bill in the first place. Also, we are very concerned that Kristian Zackheim insinuates that the court system must be "profitable" - we ask Members of the Presidium to take note of this. -- Sid Landau, Finance Minister |
| Date | 22:41:43, March 15, 2016 CET | From | Libertarian Solidarity | To | Debating the Juridical Guarantees Act (P1) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, if the GNRG is going to block any bills that would require changes of the current budget, why are we even here in the first place? Cecil W. Monroe, Chair of Libertarian Solidarity |
| Date | 22:52:16, March 15, 2016 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Juridical Guarantees Act (P1) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, The GNRG cannot "block any bills" as it does not have a majority of seats. The GNRG has merely contributed considerations, followed by a statement of its position and its intentions. If we pushed for, and voted in favour of recent changes, why would we be expected to support a reversal of those changes? If we are to support any change, however, the change must make sense to us. Zackheim has not provided a satisfactory explanation of how these policy directives would be funded. -- Sid Landau, Finance Minister |
| Date | 13:01:06, March 21, 2016 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Juridical Guarantees Act (P1) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, this bill passing would be a disaster. The budget of the Justice department isn't sufficient to support such drastic changes. We wonder what structure will be put in place. The budget we have now is sufficient to guarantee a good working of the department under the current system. Making a construction as proposed will cost us billions of LOD or, in the worst case, will result in a crappy construction that doesn't benefit the nation in the least. On the contrary, the execution of this proposal will hurt our nation and, more specifically, its citizens. This proposal is a flagrant violation of the basic right of justice! Are there even any blueprints on what this system might look like? Lidwina Westwood NWL Justice expert |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 302 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 250 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 47 |
| Random fact: Make sure your nation casts its nominations in Particracy's very own Security Council elections! For more information, see http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=8453 |
| Random quote: "He who controls the past, commands the future. He who commands the future, conquers the past." - Kane; Command and Conquer: Red Alert |