NSG Senate Coffee Shop: 50% off Americanos [NSG Senate]

[Oneracon]

Given: Peace is desirable.
1. More guns ≠ more peace.
Ergo, in order to create the most desirable situation, increasing the number of guns is a bad thing.

If you have a weapon that is powerful, it makes it less likely that we would be invaded.

So we should be following the tinpot dictator school of thought?

[Dragomere]

If you have a weapon that is powerful, it makes it less likely that we would be invaded.

So we should be following the tinpot dictator school of thought?

Every nation uses that philosophy.

[Oneracon]

So we should be following the tinpot dictator school of thought?

Every nation uses that philosophy.

No, they don't. That is an utterly simplistic view of international relations.

[Costa Alegria]

If you have a weapon that is powerful, it makes it less likely that we would be invaded.

So we should be following the tinpot dictator school of thought?

I'll get working on the Playstations.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

He took it from end war. A tungsten rod or a rod of god is an US superweapon. It is propoled at such speed that when it hits it creates a shockwawe and an earthqueqe.
And yes it breaks international law as at the moment there is a ban on space based weapons.

[The IASM]

Project Icarus

Author: Dragomere [USLP] | Category: Safety and Order | Urgency: High | Sponsors:

Whereas, modern warfare focuses on deterrents to prevent war;

Whereas, nuclear weapons programs in one country is known about in another;

Whereas, space based weapons would be a efficient deterrent from war;

We, the Senate of Aurentina, do hereby declare the creation of Project Icarus.

Declares that Project Icarus shall be to create a series of orbiting satellites armed with weapons that propel a shell, with a tungsten rod in it, towards a target on the surface of the Earth.

Mandates that this project shall be funded $10 billion every year for a minimum of ten years.

Requires, that the system may only be activated by the President or the Minister of Defense.

Given that this is illegal under international law... NO

FUCK INTERNATIONAL LAW!

[Battlion]

Final call for sponsors

Court Transparency Act
Urgency: Moderate | Author: Battlion [NDP] | Category: Order
Co-sponsors:Tundland [NDP], NEO Rome Republic [NDP], Beta Test [ALM], Britanno [ALM]

---

Preamble
An Act of the Senate of Aurentina to bring transparency to court proceedings and create a bigger connection to justice with everyday citizens whilst understanding and desiring to protect those who should remain privately involved in court proceedings.

Section I – Right to Deny
1. All Parties involved in a court case shall have the right to appeal to the Judge to restrict the recording of the case throughout its entirety or partly at the beginning of the court session.
2. The Judge may approve the appeal on the following grounds:

(a) National Security could be threatened by the recording of the case
(b) There is no significant public interest in the recording of the case
(c) Recording would endanger any party involved in a court case
(d) Any Party involved feel that recording would cause distress to themselves

3. The Right to Deny shall not be included for the delivery of verdict and/or any sentencing that is to follow.
4. The Judge shall explain his reasoning for the approval or rejection of an appeal before starting the trial, which shall be made public following the end of the court session.

Section II – Recording of Court Cases
1. Upon the passage of this act it shall be sufficient and legal for the approved recording of a court case, this shall apply to all courts within Aurentina.
2. “Approved Recording” shall be defined as the action or process of recording sound or a performance for subsequent reproduction or broadcast as approved by a Judge.
3. Any Recording that has not been approved by a Judge shall be subsequently destroyed, with those responsible facing the possibility of removal from the court or further charges as deemed sufficient by a Judge.

Section III – Broadcast of Court Cases
1. All recorded Court cases, entirely or partly, shall be placed online in an archive to be created by the Ministry of Justice.
2. Recorded Court cases, entirely or partly, shall be available for transmission across television networks following a successful bid to the Ministry of Justice.
3. The Ministry of Justice may approve or deny permission for any reason, however must provide a full public statement for doing so within twenty four hours.

Section IV – Review of Transparency
1. The Ministry of Justice shall review and produce a public statement on the amount of recorded cases available in the archive and on the amount of recorded cases that have been broadcast every year.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

Final call for sponsors

(Image)
Court Transparency Act
Urgency: Moderate | Author: Battlion [NDP] | Category: Order
Co-sponsors:Tundland [NDP], NEO Rome Republic [NDP], Beta Test [ALM], Britanno [ALM]

---

Preamble
An Act of the Senate of Aurentina to bring transparency to court proceedings and create a bigger connection to justice with everyday citizens whilst understanding and desiring to protect those who should remain privately involved in court proceedings.

Section I – Right to Deny
1. All Parties involved in a court case shall have the right to appeal to the Judge to restrict the recording of the case throughout its entirety or partly at the beginning of the court session.
2. The Judge may approve the appeal on the following grounds:

(a) National Security could be threatened by the recording of the case
(b) There is no significant public interest in the recording of the case
(c) Recording would endanger any party involved in a court case
(d) Any Party involved feel that recording would cause distress to themselves

3. The Right to Deny shall not be included for the delivery of verdict and/or any sentencing that is to follow.
4. The Judge shall explain his reasoning for the approval or rejection of an appeal before starting the trial, which shall be made public following the end of the court session.

Section II – Recording of Court Cases
1. Upon the passage of this act it shall be sufficient and legal for the approved recording of a court case, this shall apply to all courts within Aurentina.
2. “Approved Recording” shall be defined as the action or process of recording sound or a performance for subsequent reproduction or broadcast as approved by a Judge.
3. Any Recording that has not been approved by a Judge shall be subsequently destroyed, with those responsible facing the possibility of removal from the court or further charges as deemed sufficient by a Judge.

Section III – Broadcast of Court Cases
1. All recorded Court cases, entirely or partly, shall be placed online in an archive to be created by the Ministry of Justice.
2. Recorded Court cases, entirely or partly, shall be available for transmission across television networks following a successful bid to the Ministry of Justice.
3. The Ministry of Justice may approve or deny permission for any reason, however must provide a full public statement for doing so within twenty four hours.

Section IV – Review of Transparency
1. The Ministry of Justice shall review and produce a public statement on the amount of recorded cases available in the archive and on the amount of recorded cases that have been broadcast every year.

This is an invasion of privacy. You are influenced by the mass media. I would like to ask you senator. Do you know how does it feal to be accused of something you did not do and sit there. Not to mention how humiliated you will feal with that. And now even if pronaunced inocent you will get everyone to watch your humiliation. That is plain wrong in my opinion.
Transperancy is not the court main priority. It should be giving everyone a chance of a fair trail. And this is just a waste of resourses.

[Battlion]

1) Any recording is not released till after the trial online under a government ran archive
2) Media Outlets can only use footage from a trial with the approval of the Ministry of Justice

Once more, at the start of the case the Defendant can request the cameras be turned off if it would damage national security, there is no significant public interest, would endanger themselves and would cause distress. The Judge is then at his discretion on whether he agrees with this request or not, he may agree partially and rule that only certain pieces may be recorded or he could agree fully and stop any recording.

You completely assume that this is a floodgate, it has many checks within the system and after the system has been used to ensure that there isn't an invasion of privacy. You also additionally talk as if the public have no right to see how their legal system works, they can already attend court and sit in the gallery and watch however what if you want to see a case but can't physically make it? What about educating our young people on how our system works without them having to leave the classroom to see it practically? What about making journalism more open and taking correct steps in a regulated manner.

You are correct, the aim of the court isn't transparency it is justice. The Ministry of Justice wants people to be able to see justice being done, among many of the other arguments that publicised cases provide such as a prevention of unfair trials.

[The IASM]

Final call for sponsors

(Image)
Court Transparency Act
Urgency: Moderate | Author: Battlion [NDP] | Category: Order
Co-sponsors:Tundland [NDP], NEO Rome Republic [NDP], Beta Test [ALM], Britanno [ALM]

---

Preamble
An Act of the Senate of Aurentina to bring transparency to court proceedings and create a bigger connection to justice with everyday citizens whilst understanding and desiring to protect those who should remain privately involved in court proceedings.

Section I – Right to Deny
1. All Parties involved in a court case shall have the right to appeal to the Judge to restrict the recording of the case throughout its entirety or partly at the beginning of the court session.
2. The Judge may approve the appeal on the following grounds:

(a) National Security could be threatened by the recording of the case
(b) There is no significant public interest in the recording of the case
(c) Recording would endanger any party involved in a court case
(d) Any Party involved feel that recording would cause distress to themselves

3. The Right to Deny shall not be included for the delivery of verdict and/or any sentencing that is to follow.
4. The Judge shall explain his reasoning for the approval or rejection of an appeal before starting the trial, which shall be made public following the end of the court session.

Section II – Recording of Court Cases
1. Upon the passage of this act it shall be sufficient and legal for the approved recording of a court case, this shall apply to all courts within Aurentina.
2. “Approved Recording” shall be defined as the action or process of recording sound or a performance for subsequent reproduction or broadcast as approved by a Judge.
3. Any Recording that has not been approved by a Judge shall be subsequently destroyed, with those responsible facing the possibility of removal from the court or further charges as deemed sufficient by a Judge.

Section III – Broadcast of Court Cases
1. All recorded Court cases, entirely or partly, shall be placed online in an archive to be created by the Ministry of Justice.
2. Recorded Court cases, entirely or partly, shall be available for transmission across television networks following a successful bid to the Ministry of Justice.
3. The Ministry of Justice may approve or deny permission for any reason, however must provide a full public statement for doing so within twenty four hours.

Section IV – Review of Transparency
1. The Ministry of Justice shall review and produce a public statement on the amount of recorded cases available in the archive and on the amount of recorded cases that have been broadcast every year.

Courts are places were the law must be enforced without any interference from external forces, this is also an unecessary invasion of all parties privacy. Imagine this, a pedophile's lawyer is saying that the victims case is wrong an based on lies is being sent all across Aurentine all for people to see, imagine the victims horror.

[Battlion]

Final call for sponsors

(Image)
Court Transparency Act
Urgency: Moderate | Author: Battlion [NDP] | Category: Order
Co-sponsors:Tundland [NDP], NEO Rome Republic [NDP], Beta Test [ALM], Britanno [ALM]

---

Preamble
An Act of the Senate of Aurentina to bring transparency to court proceedings and create a bigger connection to justice with everyday citizens whilst understanding and desiring to protect those who should remain privately involved in court proceedings.

Section I – Right to Deny
1. All Parties involved in a court case shall have the right to appeal to the Judge to restrict the recording of the case throughout its entirety or partly at the beginning of the court session.
2. The Judge may approve the appeal on the following grounds:

(a) National Security could be threatened by the recording of the case
(b) There is no significant public interest in the recording of the case
(c) Recording would endanger any party involved in a court case
(d) Any Party involved feel that recording would cause distress to themselves

3. The Right to Deny shall not be included for the delivery of verdict and/or any sentencing that is to follow.
4. The Judge shall explain his reasoning for the approval or rejection of an appeal before starting the trial, which shall be made public following the end of the court session.

Section II – Recording of Court Cases
1. Upon the passage of this act it shall be sufficient and legal for the approved recording of a court case, this shall apply to all courts within Aurentina.
2. “Approved Recording” shall be defined as the action or process of recording sound or a performance for subsequent reproduction or broadcast as approved by a Judge.
3. Any Recording that has not been approved by a Judge shall be subsequently destroyed, with those responsible facing the possibility of removal from the court or further charges as deemed sufficient by a Judge.

Section III – Broadcast of Court Cases
1. All recorded Court cases, entirely or partly, shall be placed online in an archive to be created by the Ministry of Justice.
2. Recorded Court cases, entirely or partly, shall be available for transmission across television networks following a successful bid to the Ministry of Justice.
3. The Ministry of Justice may approve or deny permission for any reason, however must provide a full public statement for doing so within twenty four hours.

Section IV – Review of Transparency
1. The Ministry of Justice shall review and produce a public statement on the amount of recorded cases available in the archive and on the amount of recorded cases that have been broadcast every year.

Courts are places were the law must be enforced without any interference from external forces, this is also an unecessary invasion of all parties privacy. Imagine this, a pedophile's lawyer is saying that the victims case is wrong an based on lies is being sent all across Aurentine all for people to see, imagine the victims horror.

Victim requests cameras are turned off for cross-examination, turned off.

Any party can request this, broadcast is after a trial has finished.

There is no external influence, there is no difference to what we have now bar one camera in a courtroom.

Why are people assuming that cameras will be on all the time and that it will be live broadcast across the nation, the bill very clearly does neither of those things.

[The IASM]

Courts are places were the law must be enforced without any interference from external forces, this is also an unecessary invasion of all parties privacy. Imagine this, a pedophile's lawyer is saying that the victims case is wrong an based on lies is being sent all across Aurentine all for people to see, imagine the victims horror.

Victim requests cameras are turned off for cross-examination, turned off.

Any party can request this, broadcast is after a trial has finished.

There is no external influence, there is no difference to what we have now bar one camera in a courtroom.

Why are people assuming that cameras will be on all the time and that it will be live broadcast across the nation, the bill very clearly does neither of those things.

Either way, transparency is generally a bad idea, the state should be in complete control over what information gets in or out from their services however that does not mean that those who do wrong shouldn't be exposed.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

Becase even if you are innocent a trial will show one of the most emberasing moments in your life. Not to mention your breakdown of being accused of something you have not done. The public and especialy your enemies will enjoy watching a video of your humiliation. Becase trust me it is how things work.
And about the way people will see the law being enforced well let me tell you something. As long as the person responsible is behaind bars they do not care how it is enforced.

And another very much flawed assumption is that this way people can see how our justice sistem works. 99% of people do not care how the sistem works. So that already sends in water all your assumpitions about the public interest. There is none public interest for trials to be recorded.
The courts are transperant when they allow people to watch. Not to mention the preasure to the judge if the public belives that his verdic was wrong. There are multiple flaws all across the board with this proposal.
Said Branko Aleksic in his normal calm tone.

[Battlion]

Victim requests cameras are turned off for cross-examination, turned off.

Any party can request this, broadcast is after a trial has finished.

There is no external influence, there is no difference to what we have now bar one camera in a courtroom.

Why are people assuming that cameras will be on all the time and that it will be live broadcast across the nation, the bill very clearly does neither of those things.

Either way, transparency is generally a bad idea, the state should be in complete control over what information gets in or out from their services however that does not mean that those who do wrong shouldn't be exposed.

They're exposed regardless of cameras, there is a thing called the Media now... If people commit a crime and are found guilty of it by law then the public have the right to know what happened in the trial and should be able to physically see the trial. Additionally, it can be a great learning resource for those trying to understand our system as it will be available to see.

The reaction most people give is "cameras will be forever on, I Oppose" when I show them they won't I get either no reply or "transparency is bad anyway" I have not seen a single response that initially does this but when is shown goes "oh, my bad".

[Battlion]

Becase even if you are innocent a trial will show one of the most emberasing moments in your life. Not to mention your breakdown of being accused of something you have not done. The public and especialy your enemies will enjoy watching a video of your humiliation. Becase trust me it is how things work.
And about the way people will see the law being enforced well let me tell you something. As long as the person responsible is behaind bars they do not care how it is enforced.

And another very much flawed assumption is that this way people can see how our justice sistem works. 99% of people do not care how the sistem works. So that already sends in water all your assumpitions about the public interest. There is none public interest for trials to be recorded.
The courts are transperant when they allow people to watch. Not to mention the preasure to the judge if the public belives that his verdic was wrong. There are multiple flaws all across the board with this proposal.
Said Branko Aleksic in his normal calm tone.

1) Again, IF any party thinks that part of a trial or the entire trial will cause them distress if recorded they can request this before the trial formally begins and the cameras will be switched off. Zilch, no recording, no broadcast, nothing at all as stated by law!

2) So we ignore the 1%? But I look forward to seeing a source stating that the Aurentine people do not want to see how their system works, I assume you will post one for me?

3) Once more, after the trial and if the public believe a verdict is wrong there is nothing that can be done about that regardless. There will either be an appeal or nothing at all, thus this argument holds no weight.

[The IASM]

Either way, transparency is generally a bad idea, the state should be in complete control over what information gets in or out from their services however that does not mean that those who do wrong shouldn't be exposed.

They're exposed regardless of cameras, there is a thing called the Media now... If people commit a crime and are found guilty of it by law then the public have the right to know what happened in the trial and should be able to physically see the trial. Additionally, it can be a great learning resource for those trying to understand our system as it will be available to see.

The reaction most people give is "cameras will be forever on, I Oppose" when I show them they won't I get either no reply or "transparency is bad anyway" I have not seen a single response that initially does this but when is shown goes "oh, my bad".

The public has no right to see a trial no matter what happens, and the students of the law would benefit much more by being in the audience of said trial.

[The Nihilistic view]

Either way, transparency is generally a bad idea, the state should be in complete control over what information gets in or out from their services however that does not mean that those who do wrong shouldn't be exposed.

They're exposed regardless of cameras, there is a thing called the Media now... If people commit a crime and are found guilty of it by law then the public have the right to know what happened in the trial and should be able to physically see the trial. Additionally, it can be a great learning resource for those trying to understand our system as it will be available to see.

The reaction most people give is "cameras will be forever on, I Oppose" when I show them they won't I get either no reply or "transparency is bad anyway" I have not seen a single response that initially does this but when is shown goes "oh, my bad".

If those on trial get paid for it then its ok. Otherwise it would be against their image rights.

[Macedonian Grand Empire]

1) Again, IF any party thinks that part of a trial or the entire trial will cause them distress if recorded they can request this before the trial formally begins and the cameras will be switched off. Zilch, no recording, no broadcast, nothing at all as stated by law!

2) So we ignore the 1%? But I look forward to seeing a source stating that the Aurentine people do not want to see how their system works, I assume you will post one for me?

3) Once more, after the trial and if the public believe a verdict is wrong there is nothing that can be done about that regardless. There will either be an appeal or nothing at all, thus this argument holds no weight.

1. But if the judge belives that it would not they will not be turned on.
2. it is based on a Rl understanding that most of people do not give a dime about how the law sistem works
3. About the verdict notting can be done yes. But have you considered that the judge has a private life? How about the condemnation of the people he is with everyday about the verdict? All the people accusing him being wrong and so on. It is a presure for his next cases. And that can make him go with the public opinion and not what the law states.

[The Nihilistic view]

Becase even if you are innocent a trial will show one of the most emberasing moments in your life. Not to mention your breakdown of being accused of something you have not done. The public and especialy your enemies will enjoy watching a video of your humiliation. Becase trust me it is how things work.
And about the way people will see the law being enforced well let me tell you something. As long as the person responsible is behaind bars they do not care how it is enforced.

And another very much flawed assumption is that this way people can see how our justice sistem works. 99% of people do not care how the sistem works. So that already sends in water all your assumpitions about the public interest. There is none public interest for trials to be recorded.
The courts are transperant when they allow people to watch. Not to mention the preasure to the judge if the public belives that his verdic was wrong. There are multiple flaws all across the board with this proposal.
Said Branko Aleksic in his normal calm tone.

1) Again, IF any party thinks that part of a trial or the entire trial will cause them distress if recorded they can request this before the trial formally begins and the cameras will be switched off. Zilch, no recording, no broadcast, nothing at all as stated by law!

2) So we ignore the 1%? But I look forward to seeing a source stating that the Aurentine people do not want to see how their system works, I assume you will post one for me?

3) Once more, after the trial and if the public believe a verdict is wrong there is nothing that can be done about that regardless. There will either be an appeal or nothing at all, thus this argument holds no weight.

3) the public's reaction put's pressure at a particular outcome on an appeal.

[The Nihilistic view]

On the plus side chaps WEA mark 3 is getting slaughtered!

[Battlion]

1) Again, IF any party thinks that part of a trial or the entire trial will cause them distress if recorded they can request this before the trial formally begins and the cameras will be switched off. Zilch, no recording, no broadcast, nothing at all as stated by law!

2) So we ignore the 1%? But I look forward to seeing a source stating that the Aurentine people do not want to see how their system works, I assume you will post one for me?

3) Once more, after the trial and if the public believe a verdict is wrong there is nothing that can be done about that regardless. There will either be an appeal or nothing at all, thus this argument holds no weight.

1. But if the judge belives that it would not they will not be turned on.
2. it is based on a Rl understanding that most of people do not give a dime about how the law sistem works
3. About the verdict notting can be done yes. But have you considered that the judge has a private life? How about the condemnation of the people he is with everyday about the verdict? All the people accusing him being wrong and so on. It is a presure for his next cases. And that can make him go with the public opinion and not what the law states.

1) I'm not quite sure how a judge would not be able to believe distress there, again there are many exemptions that whilst it may fail in one area it could succeed in another. For example, Jimmy stole an apple from Paul... The Judge rules that Jimmy isn't distressed, however rules that as there is no significant interest in the case the recording will be either entirely or partially stopped bar verdicts and sentence delivery if appropriate.

2) Ah, so no evidence in the terms of Aurentina and her people.

3) If a Judge doesn't go by the law, he's a bad judge and simply shouldn't be a judge. Public pressure has nothing to do with this, he isn't elected nor chosen by the people his role is to uphold the law in full. If people accuse him of being wrong, then that is those peoples issue... If they try to attack the Judge they will be arrested. There is no pressure for following cases if he follows the law and acts in accordance with it, if he doesn't then again he's a bad judge.

I'm seeing the same arguments over and over, which have been proven incorrect.

[Battlion]

1) Again, IF any party thinks that part of a trial or the entire trial will cause them distress if recorded they can request this before the trial formally begins and the cameras will be switched off. Zilch, no recording, no broadcast, nothing at all as stated by law!

2) So we ignore the 1%? But I look forward to seeing a source stating that the Aurentine people do not want to see how their system works, I assume you will post one for me?

3) Once more, after the trial and if the public believe a verdict is wrong there is nothing that can be done about that regardless. There will either be an appeal or nothing at all, thus this argument holds no weight.

3) the public's reaction put's pressure at a particular outcome on an appeal.

As I just said, if judges cave to public reaction then they are bad judges and shouldn't be a judge. They should follow and uphold the law, if the law says something is wrong and the public disagree then it is lawmakers who must deal with it.

Not the Judge.

[Costa Alegria]

Local Government Act
Category: Safety and Order
Urgency: Moderate
Drafted By: Michael Blumenthal (NDP)
Sponsors: New Bierstaat (LP), Minarchist States (LP)

RECOGNISING: That Aurentina needs local government bodies to administer cities and districts effectively.

ACKNOWLEDGING: That provinces were meant to be provided for in the constitution that has never materialised.

HEREBY: Passes the Local Government Act which seeks to outline and regulate the powers of provincial and local body governments and repeals any previous legislation articles regarding local governance structure and powers.

Article 1: On Provinces
1a: Hereby creates provinces as second-tier levels of local-body administration in Aurentina.
1b: Each province is to be administered by an intendant. The intendant serves as the figurehead of the provincial administrative body and is to be elected for a term of five years to be held concurrent with local body elections.
1c: The intendant has no powers over central government.
1d: The intendant does have the power of the following:

• Infrastructure funding
• Education funding towards schools and universities
• Extra-government healthcare funding
• Cultural funding (i.e funding of arts festivals)
• Administration of local divisions of government agencies
• Local body government funding
• Ability to repeal local-body laws that are conflict or break national statutory law
• Ability to stand down an elected mayor if they refuse to resign or have committed a violation of the law that requires them to stand trial.

1e: Control of law and order, healthcare, welfare, justice and energy are to fully remain under the control of central government. Housing shall remain under the control of both local body governments and central government.
1f: Provinces may not enact statutory law nor any by-laws altogether.
1g: Provinces may not create legislative bodies.
1h: Provinces may not enact taxes on residents.
1i: Intendant candidacy restrictions are those of mayoral and council candidates.

Article 2: On District and City Councils
Article 2a: Hereby defines the following:

• District Council: A local government body that governs an area comprising one or more cities and towns with a population totalling less than 100,000 inhabitants.
• City Council: A local government body that governs an urban area with a population totalling more than 100,000 inhabitants.
• Urban Area: A population cluster totalling more than 100,000 inhabitants with a density of 350 persons per square kilometre.
• Additionally defines a district as an urban or rural area as described above without population conditions and is governed by a district or a city council.

Article 2b: Hereby creates city and district councils as third tier local body administration in Aurentina.
Article 2c: Each council shall be administered by a mayor. They are the head of the council and are elected to a term of five years to be held in elections.
Article 2d: The mayor shall not have powers over central government but does have powers over local government.
Article 2e: District Councils have the following powers:

• Control over transport and infrastructure related issues, such as road planning, tolls, parking, maintenance etc.
• Control over placement of speed limits within their respective district boundaries in accordance with national law.
• Control over zoning laws and housing areas as well as by-laws surrounding property maintenance.
• Implementation of local by-laws by the council. These laws are only valid within the territorial boundaries of the respective district and must not conflict, undermine or overrule national law.
• Provision of services such as utilities, waste disposal and public transport.
• Implementation of laws regarding the consumption of alcohol and other drugs that pose health issues towards the general public.

[*]Enact rates: monthly bills sent to residents to pay for water and other utilities and public services provided by the local council (except public transport).[/list]

Article 2f: Councils may not enact taxes on residents.
Article 2g: Mayors may not be members of any established political party prior to office nor may they hold any other political office during their term.
Article 2h: Mayors are not above local or national laws and any break of the law resulting in a trial will result in their removal from office.
Article 2i: Mayoral and council candidates must have the following in order to be eligible to run in elections:

• Aurentine citizenship or permanent residency
• Must have lived in their district for more than five years and must be able to reside on a permanent basis in said district throughout their term (holidays do not apply).
• No serious criminal record.
• All candidates must be over 18 years of age.

[/quote]

Needings of moar sponsors.

[The Nihilistic view]

3) the public's reaction put's pressure at a particular outcome on an appeal.

As I just said, if judges cave to public reaction then they are bad judges and shouldn't be a judge. They should follow and uphold the law, if the law says something is wrong and the public disagree then it is lawmakers who must deal with it.

Not the Judge.

Fact is they are a judge and they were affected by this bill in a negative way.

[Battlion]

As I just said, if judges cave to public reaction then they are bad judges and shouldn't be a judge. They should follow and uphold the law, if the law says something is wrong and the public disagree then it is lawmakers who must deal with it.

Not the Judge.

Fact is they are a judge and they were affected by this bill in a negative way.

If they don't uphold the law, they should be removed as a judge.

Judges are not affected in a negative way unless they don't uphold the law, it seems like many are now trying to make up anything to try argue against this.

First, it was a victim would be damaged if recorded (this was proven to be false, as if distressed or thought it would endanger them the recording is stopped)

Secondly, it was simply that nobody was interested (yet no evidence was used to back this up)

Thirdly, It was the Media would influence the case (despite recordings would only become available after the conclusion of a case and any TV broadcast would require the approval of the Ministry of Justice)

Fourthly, it was that "Courts should not prioritize transparency" (I agree, but this isn't the courts proposing this law it is the Ministry of Justice)

Fifthly, it was cameras will always be turned on forever regardless of anything (wish people would read Section I)

Now we are arguing that Judges would be damaged by suggesting they will be urged to bend to popular opinion, despite that not being the role of the judge and the job of the judge being that they uphold the law.

However, I am willing to go further and suggest that I amend the bill to specify that only the Lawyers arguments and the judges comments can be shown however any defendant, witness or victim will not. This surely will remove about 95% of the arguments you all keep coming up with, yet still do what the bill aims to do?