 |
Shall We Adopt This Amendment as Stated?
This poll is closed. |
| Yea |
   |
19 |
65.52% |
| Nay |
   |
8 |
27.59% |
| Abstain |
   |
2 |
6.90% |
| Total: |
29 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Timeline
|
 |
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
This Amendment will remove the Minister of Trade and Minister of Finance sections of our Code of Laws, and replace it with this:
quote:
Minister of Economy:
The Minister of Economy ensures our nation's commercial market progresses smoothly and efficiently. This officer advises the people and President on the budget of our nation and is the principle authority on all international trade involving currency and resources.
This Minister must approve any and all trades involving Gold, Luxuries, and Strategic Resources before they may be carried out. The Minister of Economy is also directly responsible for managing the Tax and Luxury sliders.
Trade Embargos must first be approved by both the Minister of Economy and Foreign Affairs Minister before they may be enforced. |
Also, to maintain constitutional coherency, the Minister of Foreign Affairs section will be reworded to the following:
quote:
Minister of Foreign Affairs:
This minister is given the power to enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries, however should refrain from making commitments until approved by the people.
The Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace, accept Mutual Protection Pacts, offer Right of Passage Agreements, and forge Military Alliances.
The exchange of all items, except Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources falls on the broad shoulders of the Foreign Affairs Minister. It is, however, strongly recommended that the Foreign Affairs Minister consults with other ministers whose office may be affected by such trades.
This Minister is required to consult the Minister of Economy when Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources are involved in a trade.
Trade Embargos must first be approved by both the Minister of Economy and Foreign Affairs Minister before they may be enforced. |
Poll Expires in 3 Days
|
|
| |
|
|
|
No use leaving it outdated. In fact, was a poll really necessary for this?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Timeline
Who says?
We make the rules here, we can do whatever we want.
Besides, this isn't a constitution, it's a Code of Laws. |
What!? How speaketh thou this blaphemy? The Code of Laws is fundamentally the same thing as a constitution, most even refer to it as the Constitution. I'm with Trip on this one. And no, you don't make the rules here, the citizenry makes the rules here. We are a direct democracy and should be run as such. I have only read parts of the Code of laws, but I am certain it must specify how things are changed, may it be an ammendment or some other method. And we must follow what the document says, honor its words, or it becomes worthless. If the code of laws becomes worthless, then no one would respect it and chaos would arise. Anarchy. My mortal enemy.I won't have it .
Kman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Timeline
|
|
Sunshine State, USA
Nov 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kramerman
What!? How speaketh thou this blaphemy? The Code of Laws is fundamentally the same thing as a constitution, most even refer to it as the Constitution. I'm with Trip on this one. And no, you don't make the rules here, the citizenry makes the rules here. We are a direct democracy and should be run as such.
Kman |
Whoa whoa, calm down please sir  .
First, when I said *we* make the laws, that's exactly what I meant, WE make the laws. That means all of us.
We all decide weather we wish to create long and drawn-out documents, or clear and efficient ones.
Second, it is called a Code of Laws, and yes, you are right, many call it a Constitution. But, this is *our* constitution, and we can make it into anything we desire.
I am just saying it's best to keep it simple and concise. Easy to understand and to follow.
The people voted for a limited constitution, not a long drawn out and confounded document.
Last edited by Timeline on 20-07-2002 at 09:55
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-07-2002 07:39
.
. Though the poll at the top saying ' shall we adopt this ammendment' and people saying they should just change it (which I interpreted as passing what I thought was an ammendment without public consent) and Timeline didn't need a poll was all kinda misleading. I apologize.
|