Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: April 5461
Next month in: 02:00:00
Server time: 05:59:59, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): Ahmad | 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: Vote: Banning due to Constitutional Violation

Details

Submitted by[?]: New Daio Party

Status[?]: defeated

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: August 2199

Description[?]:

As cited in debate here: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=56961

Regardless of the fact that the amendment was repealed after the fact, the amendment was on the books when the Red Star Movement proposed the unconstitutional cabinet, thus, the constitution was violated. The Red Star Movement ((and the user behind them, Inubuz)) should be henceforth banned from being a valid political party in the Consulate due to this gross and flagrant constitutional violation.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date00:22:04, March 13, 2006 CET
FromParty for the Promotion of Pandas
ToDebating the Vote: Banning due to Constitutional Violation
Messagebut hes gone?
hes not a political party anymore so i dont see the point?

unless yur trying to discredit everything he did, which id have to say no against because i agreed with a fair percentage of it.

Date12:59:08, March 13, 2006 CET
FromNew Daio Party
ToDebating the Vote: Banning due to Constitutional Violation
MessageHe can still reactivate anytime. The point is he didn't like the way things were so he ignored them.

Date18:52:29, March 13, 2006 CET
FromRoman Imperialist Party
ToDebating the Vote: Banning due to Constitutional Violation
MessageThe point here isn't to invalidate everything that he did. The point is that he IGNORED a Constitutional amendment simply because he did not agree with it.

Date00:22:04, March 14, 2006 CET
FromParty for the Promotion of Pandas
ToDebating the Vote: Banning due to Constitutional Violation
MessageThats over now, yes it was a bad move at the time but it is done with.

I have spoken to him and he expresses no wish to return to Zardugal again. None of our current parties are breaking the Constitution. I say let old ghosts die.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 116

no
      

Total Seats: 217

abstain
 

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: It is possible for a player to transfer ownership of a character or a royal house to another player. This should be done in a public way, such as on the Character Transfers thread, so that if a dispute arises in the future, Moderation can be pointed towards evidence of the transfer.

Random quote: “Can anyone imagine a more perverse idea than forcing faithful Hosians like me to give away my money to enable irresponsible teenage girls to kill off their children because they were too drunk to use a damn condom?" - Dr. Francesca dos Santos, former Dranian politician

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 50