«12. . .221222223224225226227. . .2,5112,512»
Let us think of somebody who would like to preside over these hearings. Otherwise, the Justice Court could hear appeals for its own decisions. The Senate would only be necessary in instances involving conflict of interest.
I don't mind if you're not democratic or accountable. I was thinking if it would be a good idea to amend the Constitution for instances in which the Founder may need to be removed - if such instances ever arise, of course...
Sorry. I'm here to stay. I won't sign a bill removing myself, unless I'm retiring from the game.
With that settled, I'd like the region to be as democratic as possible, like Britain, Canada, Denmark, Norway, or Spain. I've never used my veto power. Ideally, my role is to persuade, to oversee foreign policy, and to enforce regional law.
Xinxian, Phydios, and Ovybia
I didn't mean a bill that would remove you from office, if that is the correct way to put it in this instance. I meant a constitutional amendment that establishes measures for the removal of the Founder.
There are measures for removing the founder: a 3-0 vote in the Senate, plus my approval.
;)
My effective permanence makes it easier for me to enforce regional law. I can be the "bad cop" when somebody is disturbing the region and not worry about removal.
Xinxian, Phydios, and Ovybia
Ha-ha-ha! So you would have to approve your own removal to be removed!
Phydios and Ovybia
Exactly. And it accords with the technical mechanics.
1. My nation will perpetually hold the position of founder. Except for refounding, there's no way to undo it.
2. I have root administrative access for the offsite board. My forum account can't be deleted or demoted.
To change the topic, I have requested the Justice Court to officially recognize the Life Party as the Christian Conservative Party.
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
May I ask you, Stellonia, why you wish so strongly to remove the office of President? It seems odd to me.
Also, I believe the name "Christian Conservative Party" was rejected in the first place because it implied that the party was based on a religious ideology, which is forbidden by regional law. What do you hope to accomplish by petitioning the court?
It's because it pushes other messages out of the most recent 10 so when people just browse the latest rmb it's 40% your messages and not anyone elses. Also if you hit quote after typing a message to a previous quote it will just add in the quote it won't delete your already typed message. Hope that helps :)
Culture of Life and Ovybia
I am not very strong in my opposition to the office of President. I merely think that it has little difference from that of Senator, and therefore believe that it is not very practical.
For your information, there is no law that prohibits the establishment of parties that are based upon religious ideologies. The closest thing to that that is stated in Law 5 - Political Parties, is Section 2, which states, "Every party must be formed on the basis of a political ideology or group of political ideologies, every party must be ideologically coherent, and no party shall be ideologically extreme." Note that Section 2 does not state that no party may be founded on a religious ideology. It merely states that parties must be founded upon a political ideology; it may additionally be founded upon a religious ideology. Additionally, it cannot be determined that a party that is founded upon a religious ideology is ideologically incoherent or ideologically extreme, as many large parties have been explicitly founded upon Christian ideals, such as the National Action Party in Mexico.
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
Some people, while taking the oath of citizenship, have omitted the words "or some" to state that they oppose abortion in all cases. You may do the same and have your application for citizenship be accepted.
Aawia, Horatius Cocles, and Phydios
CoL just explained what distinguishes the President from the senators.
You replied that the Founder can assume all of those duties, which has nothing to do with whether the offices of President and Senator are similar enough to abolish the former.
Ok, I stand corrected. I was remembering the issues you had when registering the Life Party, but I looked up the conversation just now, and found that the name "Christian Conservative Party" wasn't illegal outright under RTL Code 5:2. It's just that the legality was questionable, and the Court would have had to rule on whether the law allowed parties to be partially based on a religious ideology.
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
I oppose those exceptions too, but they shouldn't be news to you. We just spent a long time debating them. Do you think slavery would have been abolished if the radical abolitionists refused to work with the gradual abolitionists? Not nearly as quickly, if at all. There's a post on this exact topic somewhere in the last few pages of this RMB.
Horatius Cocles and Stellonia
You are entitled to not support abortion in instances of fetal defects, rape, or incest. I also believe that you would have a better chance of challenging this clause in the constitution if you were a citizen.
We don't respond very well to demands. You have been told multiple times why we are tolerating some exceptions to "always illegal", even though some (perhaps many) of us strongly disagree with them (again, including me). You must learn to work with people, even when they hold views that you find repulsive.
Culture of Life, Aawia, Xinxian, Horatius Cocles, and 1 otherStellonia
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
Let me just cite a few statistics from the U.S. (Gallup, May 2015):
19% believe abortion should be completely illegal
36% believe abortion should be mostly illegal
44% self-identify with the label "pro-life"
45% believe abortion is morally wrong in general
0.19 / (0.19 + 0.36) = 35%
0.19 / 0.44 = 43%
0.19 / 0.45 = 42%
In other words, only about 40% of Americans who could be considered pro-life (broadly speaking) are categorically opposed to abortion. Or are they (Gallup, June 2011)?
13% say abortion to save a woman's life should be illegal
15% say abortion to save a woman's physical health should be illegal
22% say abortion in cases of rape or incest should be illegal
35% say abortion to save a woman's mental health should be illegal
45% say the abortion of a physically defective child should be illegal
46% say the abortion of a mentally defective child should be illegal
61% say abortion for economic reasons should be illegal
If we were to amend our constitution to remove the health, rape, incest, and fetal defects exceptions, as Ovybia advocates, we could alienate three-fifths (or more) of the people who are against social and economic abortions (90% of abortion procedures). Six-tenths of our allies and maybe even our region could disappear over one-tenth of cases.
Xinxian and Phydios
Post self-deleted by Ovybia.
This is what our constitution currently says:
1. Citizenship belongs to every member of the regional forums who has a nation present in the region, has taken the oath of citizenship, and has complied with regional law.
2. The oath of citizenship is "I, [insert nation name], hereby affirm that I am pro-life; I am against elective abortion in all or most cases."
3. Only someone who is pro-life can hold citizenship. Someone pro-life must be opposed to elective abortion in all or most cases. A citizen may support legal access to therapeutic abortions and abortions in cases of rape, incest, and fetal defects.
Section 3, in my view, clarifies what the rest of Article 1 means.
I can't speak for other countries; but, in the United States, 73% of women who abort identify "can't afford a baby now" as a primary or secondary reason (Guttmacher Institute). According to Gallup, 61% of Americans believe that these sorts of abortions should be criminalized. Why do only 44% of Americans, then, identify as pro-life?
My view: the average person (in the United States or in any other country) is usually ignorant about abortion. This region and other pro-life groups must work to give people the facts because, if they knew that 90% of unborn children were being terminated for social and economic reasons, they'd be appalled. A major reason that abortion is so widely tolerated is that the abortion lobby has spread the myths that abortions are rare and that they're performed for only the most extreme reasons. "What about rape?" and "What if she'll die?" are common cries of abortion choice activists.
In reality, a quarter of pregnancies are artificially terminated in the Western world (Australia: 21%, United Kingdom: 22%, Canada: 22%, United States: 23%) for the least compelling reasons:
Having a baby would dramatically change my life: 74%
Can't afford a baby now: 73%
Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems: 48%
Have completed my childbearing: 38%
Not ready for a(nother) child: 32%
Don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant: 25%
Don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child: 22%
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion: 14%
(and then all of the exceptions)
Xinxian and Phydios
«12. . .221222223224225226227. . .2,5112,512»
Advertisement
