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: RP: Constitutional Amendment- Deceleration of Rights and Baltusian Constitutional Court
Details
Submitted by[?]: Baltusian International Democratic 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: January 4210
Description[?]:
| This bill, the Deceleration of Rights, requires a 2/3rds passage. The enforcement of these rights shall be through the Constitutional Court (Article IX). Article I- All Baltusians shall be guaranteed the right to life. Article II- All Baltusians shall be protected from torture, slavery and inhuman treatment. Article III- All Baltusians shall be entitled to liberty and security. Article IV- All Baltusians shall be granted a fair trial and freedom from arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. Article V- All Baltusians shall be given privacy in their private and family life. Article VI- All Baltusians shall have their freedom of thought, conscience, expression and religion protected. Article VII- All Baltusians shall have their freedom of association and assembly protected. Article VIII- All Baltusians shall have their rights protected equally and fairly. Article IX- A Baltusian Constitutional Court shall be established, with the power to issue a 'statement of unconstitutionality' when legislation contradicts the rights outlined within the Declaration of Rights. In these circumstances, Congress should consider repealing or amending the specific legislation however they are not obliged to. The Baltusian Constitutional Court also rules on constitutional issues other than the Deceleration of Rights such as Governors, Majority and Minority Speakers and conflict of interests. In this scenario, each case will be rendered 'constitutional' or 'unconstitutional' Article X- Every party in Congress shall be entitled to appoint a judge to the Baltusian Constitutional Court, with the Justice Minister appointing one further judge. In cases where there is a tie on the Court, the President shall be granted the deciding vote. Article XI- The two opposing sides in a Constitutional Court case shall be defendant ( name of bill or other issue) vs. State. Anyone can represent the defence, however, in the circumstance where the defence is a Congressional bill, it would preferably be the party that authored it. In the circumstance of the defence being something other than a bill, the party involved would represent the defence, however they can request legal representation from another party. The State shall be represented by the party of the Ministry of Justice, however, they can request another party represents the state, this should ideally be from a coalition partner or political ally. The arbitrator should see over court proceedings and ensure continuity of the case. The arbitrator must be from a party OTHER THAN the Ministry of Justice or Defence. Article XI - For a case to be brought to the Baltusian Constitutional Court, anyone who finds an unconstitutionality with a bill or otherwise, must immediately inform the Ministry of Justice to initiate the case. Article XII - As a constitutional amendment, this bill requires a two-thirds majority to be passed but may be overturned by a simple majority. However, specific legislation repealing this bill is required in order to remove its provisions from effect; simply passing legislation which contravenes this bill does not represent a repeal of it. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:58:47, May 12, 2017 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the RP: Constitutional Amendment- Deceleration of Rights and Baltusian Constitutional Court |
| Message | Members of Congress, Whilst we welcome the introduction of a Constitutional Court as outlined in Article IX, we still have severe misgivings about how the Declaration of Rights will be interpreted (namely Articles I to VIII). For instance Article I - All Baltusians shall be guaranteed the right to life - means to me that abortion laws and euthanasia laws could be deemed unconstitutional. And in the case of a medical emergency, where the mother may die unless the unborn baby is terminated, who has the greater right to life? In this case both could die while the matter is argued in a court room. Article IV - All Baltusians shall be given privacy in their private and family life, could be used to overrule laws on undesirable sexual activity such as behind-closed-doors incest, looking at child porn, or even smoking or taking illegal drugs. After discussing this matter within our party, and based on the kind of uncertainties we have outlined above, we have decided to use our veto to stop this passing as it stands (OOC: We have over one third of the seats in the house... just ;)). We urge the author to re-propose this bill based just on the Articles relating to a Constitutional Court, of which we are 100 per cent in favour and would vote Yes. We should then spend some considerable time debating the declaration of rights, the wording and seeking judicial interpretation before another vote on this critical matter. Alexandra Flanders Majority Speaker of the House |
| Date | 17:55:09, May 12, 2017 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the RP: Constitutional Amendment- Deceleration of Rights and Baltusian Constitutional Court |
| Message | Members of Congress, The point in the Deceleration of Rights is that it is meant to be interpreted not only now, but in the future. The points the Patriotic Party makes are understandable, however, as for statements of unconstitutionality's require a majority of the Constitutional Court, we believe it would be virtually impossible for the Court to rule in that behind-doors-incest and watching child pornography are constitutional, unless there was a majority of parties that ruled in favour of that- extraordinarily unlikely. Additionally, these statements are merely recommendations. Will the Patriotic Party now consider voting in favour? Thank you. President DeGraz |
| Date | 20:44:41, May 12, 2017 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the RP: Constitutional Amendment- Deceleration of Rights and Baltusian Constitutional Court |
| Message | Madame President, We simply cannot vote for this bill of rights as it stands. It exposes the existing laws of our land to so much subjective scrutiny that I forsee an endless list of legal challenges and the government being constantly sued. The only people who will truly benefit are the lawyers, who will be kept very busy. Alexandra Flanders Majority Speaker of the House |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 459 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 241 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players who deliberately attempt to present a misleading picture of the nation's current RP laws will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington |