Search results

Thanks for the correction Kasch, it has been fixed I believe. In regards to the arguments above, I will say that I fully recognize that these may be a bridge too far in terms of RA input into foreign policy - especially the treaty one, which is why I kept them separate. That said, one of my...

I have adopted Sil's version of the wording, thanks for that Sil. Personally I do agree that the current wording can be argued to only apply to one office at a time (as oaths are sworn individually and you change the office for each one) but prefer that to be a guarantee. Arguably you should...

Conflict between branches I do think is perfectly fine in a democracy - we don’t elect (or appoint) anyone, even the Delegate, on the presumption that they will never be out of line with the citizenry. Moreover, the difference between the RA potentially overturning a bit of foreign policy or a...

As a note, this was initially two threads that were merged upon my request, since much of the debate regarding matters of RA involvement in FA is likely to be duplicated otherwis.

What you suggest is reasonable for such a situation, I just don’t see why we should have to rely on such a roundabout method of forcing a treaty repeal.

As recent events have indicated, it may be a bit much for the punishment for one oath violation to result in removal from all offices, and not just the one. I am open to alternate wordings.

In pairing with my thoughts on treaty repeal, I do believe the general citizenry should have the same power as the delegate to propose diplomatic restrictions - the recent attempted embassy with 10000 Islands indicates it is very possible for the Delegate and general citizenry to be out-of-step...

One of the things that I think the drama with TSP and the subsequent repeal of our treaty with them is that the RA is very bound to the Delegate in matters of treaties. I don't think this is entirely reasonable, especially considering the 2/3rds majority requirement to repeal them already...

Thanks for your time, hope you can one day not be burnt

I, Lord Dominator, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as Bar Commissioner, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal...

I, Lord Dominator, do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as Temporary Hearing Officer, I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a...

Nation: Lady Raven Wing I pledge loyalty to The North Pacific and its territories, 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...

Sounds good to me

I don’t have one off the top of my head at least, but I’ll go look at the people already confirmed to the bar and see if anyone sticks out in a bit

Delegate: < Abstain> Would you like to reopen nominations? < No > Vice Delegate: <Abstain> Would you like to reopen nominations? < No > Speaker: < Abstain > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No >

Against - native delegate has indicated a lack of support

Well, MJ at least isn’t presently in the NPA In any case, I will note that legally speaking regular NPA regulations in 7.6 of the LC and elsewhere do provide us all of the necessary regional powers to at least keep the place in good order - with the possible exception of particularly aggressive...

Assorted Discord convos mainly, predicated on the fact that TCB doesn’t exac want fash spawns in particular

Against - my understanding is that they intend to eventually switch to actually having a Governor again, not a Frontier and it seems unnecessarily petty to prevent that

Against

And fixed

And that is posted, I do believe I got all the changes and made sure all the appropriate bits were quoted or linked to.

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @The IC 1101 Empire On The Regional Ban of Siberia Union Opinion drafted by Justice @Lord Dominator, joined by Chief Justice @Attempted Socialism and Justice @Pallaith The Court took into consideration the...

Looks good to me Helps that it is pretty open and shut :p

The conclusion bit may not be needed and is certainly not at all well written, but I was running out of writing steam at that point so I have that. Links and whatnot to prior rulings, NS rules, and our laws are left out of this draft for my ease of ability in making it.

Standing: The petitioner is a nation ejected and banned, and as such is entitled to judicial review of the same pursuant to Article 8 of the Bill of Rights. Facts of the Case: The petitioner by their own admittance a message on the RMB that appeared to contain personal details such as addresses...

For clarity, you do mean that the LWU embassy closure was what you were warning of? And further, blackmail in the manner alleged by the same, or?

Yes, I just might not have one until Friday

Sounds like we’re in agreement on the basics of this at least - couple good points I do agree to include as a base that you raised Pallaith

I did close the time for briefs (late, apologies). I don’t think I have anything to add to the above outside of making is more official reading, but do you have any thoughts @Pallaith?