Lex Caecilia Didia


Why doesn’t the US have this law? I’m trying to get a overall understanding of the rise and fall of ObamaCare, and started off with paralleled failed laws through history, starting with the Roman Social Wars, and came across this little law…

Had we had this in place, be it a law or better, a constitutional amendment, it would of prevented the whole nightmare of passing a law that had yet to be written, and would of substantially trimmed it’s inherent chaos. Beautiful little law. Didn’t stop the Social Wars, invoking it started them,but was hardly the cause, the war was inevitable by that point, and the italians not even represented by the senate, so highly doubt they cared for adherence to constitutional trivia by that point.

However, for a inclusive republic, where near universal sufferage and representation exists, I can’t imagine a nicer law. It woukd force a time period for public readings of the law, stop strange earmarks not having to do with the law persay. Makes alot of sense.

I severely doubt Trump or his staff, or any congressman follows me here,but if yoy do, this law is needed in America. I would put exceptions for declarations of war, war treaties. Time is pressing in these cases. We haven’t declared war since WW2, but it is still on our books, and congress shouldn’t be gamstrung in monolithic changes needed to make the nation capable of pursuing a total war strategy… nor the awful reaction that a failed peace treaty would invoke in a enemy if voters rejected it… sometimes its better to just fucking end a war already, and not leave it to virtual democracy to decide, cause by that point, the people might be enraged into a state of irrational hatred and want revenge at any cost. Think the analysis of our generals and top statesmen are a better judge for the necessity of breaking off a war even if the people demand it, as they are in a superior position to comprehend the facts. I dont mean they shoukd prisecute wars without listening to the pleas of the people to stop- like Vietnam, but but we need to be cautious to unlimited bloodlust at the same time by a enraged population who dont get the cost of doing so, when a wiser end can be brought sooner.

Can US citizens not submit ideas for laws and policies?

I guess not. :confused:

I gotta submit it indirectly. Technically, you can too.

However, my vocation of philosopher or historian isn’t same as statesman, I am more responsible for either the original formulation of a idea, or it’s resurrection for debate, hence me almost certain to be overlooked post here.

How do ideas for micro policies, and policies in general, get forwarded to states and the government for scrutiny and possible implementation? the process is a very simple one here.

Is your government making it uneccessarily difficult to do so on purpose?

I can? from here? how?

Yes, they make it difficult by design.

I’ll look later for graphics, it is designed to keep the Republican system of bicameral legislation from collapsing under spam attacks of frivolous bills.

It’s a fairly simple, straight forward process:

The U.K. process:

Doesn’t the US already have a law in place that prohibits add-on sub-laws being allowed? Perhaps not :confusion-shrug: but Carleas is best placed to verify that… wouldn’t any add-ons have to be resubmitted as an amendment to a bill? as anything less reeks of tampering and corruption.

The House Of Lords needs reform as it is entirely undemocratic and very overpopulated

You should only have Church if England members in the house of lords, and they should rule over you with a iron fist.

The Church Of England was founded by Henry VIII simply because the Pope would not grant him
a divorce so that he could remarry. It is an anachronism and should be abolished along with the
monarchy. For neither have any place in a secular liberal democracy in the twenty first century

Your country is a liberal theocracy. Like Iran.

I would not call any country liberal that has the death penalty for homosexuality

If the bulk of it’s laws are liberal, as Irans certainly are, then it is clearly liberal.

Homosexuality isn’t by the way a central concern of any society, it is something on the periphial. If it is central, that society is quickly dying off, preferring sterility over reproduction. In cases of demographics collapse, losing population reduces the capacity for freedoms in terms of interdependent scope and ability to pursue them, when they are mutually supported logistically, as in A gives rise to B, which gives rise to C. If a small population can only supply A, sometimes B, rare to never C, then said society is less liberal in C. If this is because of X, then X is the cause of this limiting obstruction.

Removing/suppressing X can therefor be liberal. You’ll find that most conservatives will fight against the liberal instinct to suppress value X, whereas most Liberals will disregard C, presuming if we all just tried, we could have A, B, C, fuck even D (what’s D?) if we only apply a Utopian Scheme… but that universally just leads to a society that can just barely manage A, Rarely to Never B, and only the dictator has C, if even that. X and Y (Y being everyone with a desires or C or X, or merely mistaken for having it, damn Capitalist Roaders).

Killing all the gays can be the most liberal, progressive thing in the world, and most rational by liberal logic. But it doesn’t have to be gays either. X is X.

An interesting angle to take on the matter :confusion-shrug:

Impregnating a woman?

Which is Mugabe’s point… the anti-gay Mugabe has put forth an impossible quest for gay couples, but this did make me laugh 8-[

Only in Africa would such a stunt like that be tolerated or allowed, but the Middle East would soon do likewise with glee… or just stone them to death as normal. :confusion-shrug:

You realize homosexuality is more openly accepted in Iraq than in the west, right?

You realise that homosexuality is forbidden in Islam

You also realise that it is punishable by death in the so called democracy that is Saudi Arabia

Also doesn’t have that much of a impact, they tend not to reproduce.

Something that needs to be grappled with by the English School of Selfish Gene Philosophers. By that philosophy, does it make sense for them to support such a population? Wouldn’t it make sense for non-breeders in a world where God is supposedly dead, where we make our own values, etc, just to streamline society to breeders? Kill gays, kill useless old people, kill sterile people, do what North Korea did and kill all the midgets? Do some Nietzschean George Bernard Shaw shit?

Where is the logic against that in your outlook? You seem to embrace a similar philosophy as this, but also insist everyone just accept homosexuality just cause. Where is the reasoned arguments on your part?