amend legal code 6.1 clause 5 (reintro)

PaulWallLibertarian42

PaulWallLibertarian42

TNPer
Amendment to Legal Code 6.1 Clause .5, renumber clauses approprately and adding a new clause .8.

1. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows:

Quote:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.

A new Clause 8. Shall read as follows: 8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.

All existing clauses from clause 8-14 shall be renumbered accordingly and respectfully to 9-15. And the rest of chapter 6 the clauses shall be renumbered accordingly and approprately
Click to expand...


The original debate can be found here: Amend Legal Code 6.1 clause 5.

Italics reflect change

Adding in a provision that the RA can choose to overturn a previous vote to approve a VD's rejection I feel is a good measure that can allow the RA to choose to lift a previous rejection if the circumstances of the applicant changes and the RA no longer feels they are a risk and wishes to allow them on the Assembly.

The full text of the Chapter with the applicable proposed changes should read as follows:

Chapter 6: Government Regulations

1. Any Law regulating the operations of the government of the North Pacific other than the Election Commission, the Judiciary, and the Security Council must be listed in this chapter.

Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act
2. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
Quote:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
Click to expand...

3. A copy of the laws applicants are pledging to obey must be available to them at all times.
4. An application for Regional Assembly membership ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific.
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection.
8.The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
9. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
10. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been accepted or rejected within that time, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.
11. Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote which began before they were last admitted.
12. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members.
13. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
14. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members who fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or who have not voted for 20 consecutive days and have missed four consecutive Regional Assembly votes to enact, amend or repeal laws, as determined by the time they closed.
15. Regional Assembly members that have submitted a notice of absence, in accordance with any regulations set by the Speaker, shall be exempt from the provisions of the above clause for the stated duration of their absence.
Click to expand...
 
Since this was already debated and introduced by cormac but hes no longer in the RA we have to reintroduce it.

This has already been debated?

Do we need further debate? Or motion to vote?

I am kinda curious about what a 'security risk assesment by the VD entails..can DD clarify without giving away classified info? And can the SC use 'securty' to block someone they just dont like? Can they do that? Would they do that? Do they have to give the RA specifics on why they view someone as s threat for the RA to vote to uphold or overturn?

These questions and More...coming up. Stay tuned to TNP-Span.

Seriously? We need to discuss more or we good?

Edit: sorry I thought it still said security risk, okay anyway what Constitutes 'compatibility' the RA is a mix of 50+ people with varying views and Gameplay styles? Could 'compatibility' be used to block someone they just plain don't like or are they able to put personal feelings aside? And make a professional decision?
 
I don't feel I am a risk. How am I a risk? Is posting style a risk? Last I checked I have only been attempting to participate in good faith and discuss proposed legislation and opinions and issues as I see them..as many others do..as a legislative body is want to do and thier purpose.

Crushing Our Enemies: "I like leaving in the bit about Regional Security. It gives the RA a basis on which to make their decision, and keeps the VD block from turning into a test of whether or not the candidate is well-liked, which was not the intention of the original legislation, and antithetical to a healthy democratic society."
Click to expand...
 
I see you have re-introduced Cormac's original Amendment proposal, prior to edits. 'Compatibility' is vague and subject to potential abuse. I can't support this without some clarification. I'm not a fan of the 'security risk' guideline either, but it at least has some constraints (as outlined in the Legal Code).
 
Yes I didnt notice that when I copy and pasted that. I also perfer 'security risk' as that requries some legal basis. 'Compatibility' leaves too much leeway for a VD whomever that may be to use discretin to possibly discriminate against an applicant for personal reasons rather than have professional cause to.

I will go back and amend with the 'security risk' terminology, however that also begs the question what is a 'security risk' and what specifics cause someone to be one. Also, see CoE's quote I quoted I felt it relevant to restate it.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
I will go back and amend with the 'security risk' terminology, however that also begs the question what is a 'security risk' and what specifics cause someone to be one. Also, see CoE's quote I quoted I felt it relevant to restate it.
Click to expand...
Here's my latest edit (if you want to use it as a starting/end point):

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify they are not using a proxy, and are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty. Upon submission of a Regional Assembly application, the Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with TNP Laws.

I changed the last bit to 'TNP Laws'. Dunno if the acronym is acceptable for legislation.
 
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify they are not using a proxy, and are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty[1]. Upon submission of a Regional Assembly application, the Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant[2]. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with TNP Laws[3].
Click to expand...

[1] By what body? TNP? Other regions?
[2] In the case in which the VD fails to do so in three days, what happens if after that period the VD considers the applying nation to be one?
[3] Which TNP laws would apply in this case? Wouldn't it be assumed that these laws already apply if they are in the Constibillocode?
 
As far as language there is option A.

Amendment to Legal Code 6.1 Clause 5

1. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows:

Quote:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not a security risk via consulation with the Security Council
Click to expand...

Or Option B. With Falapatorius's proposed change *honestly I like his better*

Amendment to Legal Code 6.1 Clause 5

1. Chapter 6, Section 6.1, Clause 5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows:

Quote:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with TNP Laws.
Click to expand...

I also like "in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific."

Saying the formal title makes it look more professional?

Or we can drop that part?
 
Lord Nwahs:
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify they are not using a proxy, and are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty[1]. Upon submission of a Regional Assembly application, the Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant[2]. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with TNP Laws[3].
Click to expand...

[1] By what body? TNP? Other regions?
[2] In the case in which the VD fails to do so in three days, what happens if after that period the VD considers the applying nation to be one?
[3] Which TNP laws would apply in this case? Wouldn't it be assumed that these laws already apply if they are in the Constibillocode?
Click to expand...
[1] Forum administration would have to weigh in on that, as they perform the checks.
[2] I believe it would go to the Delegates desk in that situation.
[3] As we've seen in the RON injunction ruling, not explicitly spelling out how the law applies can cause problems.

Feel free to add any edits.
 
Ok.. how's this?


5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify they are not using a proxy, and are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty. Upon submission of a Regional Assembly application, the Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.

Reason for edit: Pasted the wrong one.
 
falapatorius:
Ok.. how's this?


5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify they are not using a proxy, and are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty. Upon submission of a Regional Assembly application, the Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.

Reason for edit: Pasted the wrong one.
Click to expand...
The OP reflects this change.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
falapatorius:
Ok.. how's this?


5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants, and verify they are not using a proxy, and are not evading a judicially-imposed penalty. Upon submission of a Regional Assembly application, the Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.

Reason for edit: Pasted the wrong one.
Click to expand...
The OP reflects this change.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I had to edit the post. The proposal with the wording 'upon submission' is preferable as it states when the VD must perform their checks.
 
falapatorius:
[2] I believe it would go to the Delegates desk in that situation.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't, actually - if no VD security check is done in 3 days, no security check can be done.

In terms of wording, I would recommend sticking as close as possible to the existing language - I don't think "upon submission" adds anything, as it's not used in the forum administration section and hasn't ever needed to be. So my suggested amendment is:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they do not pose a threat to regional security. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with the laws of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

I would also recommend specifying how a denied application can be overturned. For example:

7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection.
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
Click to expand...
 
"Holding a majority vote" is a new creature that doesn't say what what I suspect is intended. And I was under the impression if we mean a simple majority we don't need to specify a "majority."
The better language in clause 7 as proposed would be "...the Regional Assembly will vote immediately on a motion to sustain or overturn the Vice Delegate's decision on an applicant."
This would also allow the R.A. to disagree with a determination of a lack of a security risk made by the Vice Delegate concerning an applicant.
The proposed clause 8 would then require a change to in part read "a previous decision concerning an applicant...."
That would make the entire process more balanced and more open and allow the R.A. to have a review authority on the Vice Delegate's security assessment no matter what that assessment is.
 
Edit: Upon submission removed for unnessicary wording.

We can move on to talk about the RA Veto/Overturn of a VD's assesment if you wish, I have no suggestions on how to adress it. If a consensus is came to I can certianly add it in to the final proposal.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
"Holding a majority vote" is a new creature that doesn't say what what I suspect is intended. And I was under the impression if we mean a simple majority we don't need to specify a "majority."
The better language in clause 7 as proposed would be "...the Regional Assembly will vote immediately on a motion to sustain or overturn the Vice Delegate's decision on an applicant."
This would also allow the R.A. to disagree with a determination of a lack of a security risk made by the Vice Delegate concerning an applicant.
The proposed clause 8 would then require a change to in part read "a previous decision concerning an applicant...."
That would make the entire process more balanced and more open and allow the R.A. to have a review authority on the Vice Delegate's security assessment no matter what that assessment is.
Click to expand...
Grosse, clause 7 is already part of the legal code.

Moreover, I am personally not at all comfortable with the RA being able to vote to eject people who have passed a security check. There are already concerns that this law will become a popularity contest, and such a change would make it much worse by allowing the RA to chuck out accepted members who might have unpopular opinions.
 
Moreover, I am personally not at all comfortable with the RA being able to vote to eject people who have passed a security check. There are already concerns that this law will become a popularity contest, and such a change would make it much worse by allowing the RA to chuck out accepted members who might have unpopular opinions.
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
I would like to motion this for a vote and schedule formal debates, as reflected in my edited OP/Proposal and restated herein;

To Amend Clause 5 of the Chapter 6.1 of the legal code to read as follows:
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

All existing clauses starting with clause 8 shall be re-numbered to Clauses 9 thru 15 respectfully and accordingly.

A new Clause 8 shall be placed between clause 7 and the re-numbered clauses and read as follows:
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
Click to expand...

All applicable clauses in chapter 6 shall also be renumbered accordingly and approprately to reflect the changes.

The full text of the Chapter with the applicable proposed changes should read as follows:

Chapter 6: Government Regulations

1. Any Law regulating the operations of the government of the North Pacific other than the Election Commission, the Judiciary, and the Security Council must be listed in this chapter.

Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act
2. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
Quote:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
Click to expand...

3. A copy of the laws applicants are pledging to obey must be available to them at all times.
4. An application for Regional Assembly membership ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific.
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection.
8.The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
9. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
10. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been accepted or rejected within that time, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.
11. Regional Assembly members may not vote in any vote which began before they were last admitted.
12. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of Regional Assembly members.
13. The Speaker will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose nation in The North Pacific leaves or ceases to exist.
14. The Speaker's office will promptly remove any Regional Assembly members who fail to log in to the North Pacific forum for over 30 consecutive days; or who have not voted for 20 consecutive days and have missed four consecutive Regional Assembly votes to enact, amend or repeal laws, as determined by the time they closed.
15. Regional Assembly members that have submitted a notice of absence, in accordance with any regulations set by the Speaker, shall be exempt from the provisions of the above clause for the stated duration of their absence.
Click to expand...
 
This bill is now in formal debate. It ends in 5 days, after which a vote shall be scheduled.
 
Pursuant to legislative proposal procedure #4 found here: Standing Procedures

Since this proposal has been discussed at length in some form or another for over a month.
On the original thread Here

And since it has been reintroduced on this thread on the 19th day of March and today is now the 25th of March exactly the 7th day of reintro, in that time it has met with no major resistance and has been in formal debate for almost a full 36 hours without comment, as the proposals reintroducer I would like to make the motion to shorten the formal debate timeframe or end it if it is in my power to request such action and schedule a vote accordingly at the Speakers earliest convience. Thank you.
 
As the proposer has motioned to conclude formal debate early, formal debate is concluded, I should note that the bill can no longer be amended. A vote on the bill is scheduled to begin in six days (31.03.2014).
 
Thank you Mr. Speaker. As there had been no more input I did not feel continued debates were nessicary and I am comfortable with the final version. The re numbering of clauses thing I was not sure how to word that. But I feel comfortable it should be satisfactory. Thank you again.
 
I still believe the actual wording of the bill in its current form is problematic. I therefor plan to abstain, and will address my concerns at some point in future legislation. (I see a number of such problems in much of the recent legislation passed by the R.A., and therefore such a bill is going to be necessary.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top