FD - Constitutional Editing

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
As produced by Unter:

COLOR KEY:
Blue means additions
Red means deletions
Green strikethru means text is copied verbatim to Plain Green
Click to expand...

Article I
Section 1: Rights of Nations
1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection , adding or withdrawing endorsements and UN membership.
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the United Nations shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.
4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding UN member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a UN member.
5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the impeachment of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with this Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.
6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer, represented by counsel of choice. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven   to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code.
8'. If, as a matter of security, any nation should be ejected or banned from the region or forums, that Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security, the ejected or banned Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The UN Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to this Constitution or to the Legal Code.
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.

Section 2: Limits of Power
In order to uphold the aforementioned rights of nations, the government of The North Pacific shall be subject to these limitations:
1. Any nation holding office in the Regional Government of The North Pacific shall act only in the best interests of the Region.
2. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution.
3. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
4. As regional security is also a right of resident nations, in the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.
5. If a nation submits a petition co-signed by a fellow nation taking issue with Regional governance, the Cabinet shall be required to review and issue a statement addressing the petition.
6. No government official shall have the authority to change the designated off-site forum for regional governance without approval of a majority of the members of the Regional Assembly.
7. The UN Delegate and Vice Delegate for the Region shall have no authority to act in any other manner with respect to the Regional Government, unless such authority is expressly granted to the Delegate or Vice Delegate through process of Amendment of this Constitution, and not by implication.
8. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code
Click to expand...

Here I am also taking Article II, Section 3 to lump in its curbs on governmental power to the front of the document. I would take part 2 and basically make it into Article I section 2 parts 1 and 5. Article II section 3 part 3 would become I.2.6. Article II section 3 part 1 is addressed in Article II Section 1 Part 1, and I believe should be deleted, but that should be dealt with later (Eventually I feel the entirety of Article II section 3 can be transferred or deleted). Quoted below for good measure:

Art.II:
Section 3. Jurisdiction, Review of Regional Government Action.

1) Nations who register to vote in this Region are subject to all the provisions of this Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, or other laws including but not limited to the provisions of Article III; Section 1, Clause 5 of this Constitution. Each Nation entitled to a vote in the manner prescribed under this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code, is entitled to the equal treatment of that Nation's right to vote.
2) The UN Delegate for The North Pacific, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister, any deputy Cabinet minister, and the Attorney General shall act only in the best interests of the Region. Should any Regional Assembly member believe that the actions of the Delegate, the Prime Minister, or any other official in the Regional Government are inappropriate, or would serve the Region better if enacted as permanent law, that Nation may draft a petition, describing the action taken, to be signed by at least one other member, and then posted in a appropriate thread in the Regional off-site forum for the Prime Minister's office. The Cabinet shall review all such petitions. After deciding on the proper action to be taken, whether it is to overturn that action or to adopt that action as permanent law, the Cabinet shall put its decision up for a referendum of the Regional Assembly. If a majority vote is cast by the Regional Assembly (with a quorum of voters participating) in favor of ratification of the Cabinet's decision is approved by the Regional Assembly, it shall be carried out immediately.
3) No government official shall have the authority to change the designated off-site forum for regional governance without approval of a majority of the members of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
 
It is possible for Unter to post a list showing where each deletion is being transferred to?

I want to make certain everything is being retained, or that we have a clear discussion about anything being deleted, such as, the first sentence of Article I, Clause 1. I am concerning that we would withdraw a recognition that every nation in The North Pacific has soveirignity. That isn't my only concern, but I don't wee how one can be sure there is no substantive changes without it.

I'd do it mysef, but I am still on the road (interstatemove) and it will be a few more days before I will have the time.
 
No problemo, Schnauzer.

The last sentence of part 2 has been moved to Section 2 part 1.
Part four has been incorporated in Section 1 Part 1.
The end of Part 8 seems to not be here, but rather a passage from Article III has been put in Section 2 part 7 curbing the powers of Delegate and VD. I'm not sure right now if this was an oversight on my part, and we should discuss what we would like to say about the limits we want to put on the Delegate at the front of the document.
The last half of Part 9 has been moved to Section 2, part 2 and Setion 2 part 3.
Part 11 has been split up into Section 2 part 4 and section 2 part 8

Article II section 3 part 2 would be taken and split up into section 2 part 1 (it seems to be a verbatim repeat of Article I part 2) and section 2 part 5.
Article II section 3 part 3 would be moved to Art I section 2 part 6.

Regarding the passage on sovereignty, I feel that the rights enscapulated in Article I part 1 are the very definition of sovereignty. The rights in the second sentence should be sufficient to protect any nation's sovereignty.
 
mr_sniffles:
Article I
Section 1: Rights of Nations
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I know it's silly, but I'm a little curious about that edit. Just wondering what the reason is for cancelling that bit out?
 
Unterwasserseestaat:
Regarding the passage on sovereignty, I feel that the rights enscapulated in Article I part 1 are the very definition of sovereignty. The rights in the second sentence should be sufficient to protect any nation's sovereignty.
Click to expand...
An affirmation of each Nation's sovereignity protects member Nations in this region from undue interference in their gameplay. Such an affirmation puts the rest of what is currentlyly Clause 1 of the Declaration of Rights into a propwr contet, and avoids question similar to how terms limits are applied to those who are elected as opposed to serving part of a term.
 
nish81:
mr_sniffles:
Article I
Section 1: Rights of Nations
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I know it's silly, but I'm a little curious about that edit. Just wondering what the reason is for cancelling that bit out?
Click to expand...
My reason for taking it out is that is isn't specifically a right of nations in the region. I think that the existence and description of the MoCE, and to a lesser extent the MoC and MoAE all are expressly for the encouragement of expression in the region. I think it would be appropriate to add in a clause into the descriptions of any or all of the above Ministers. If you think it's important enough to put at the front of the document under Article I section 2, my ears are open.

Art III section 2:
9) Minister of Culture and Education.
A - The Minister shall encourage the Cultural and Educational arts and industries, protect The North Pacific's heritage, and advance the public information system of the Region in order to maximize their contribution to the region's awareness and social vitality.
Click to expand...

@Schnauzer, I don't quite understand what the analogy to term limits is getting at. Are you concerned about nations created in the region versus moved in at a later date? I'm also not sure what interference the edited part 1 would open nations up to.
 
Unterwasserseestaat:
If you think it's important enough to put at the front of the document under Article I section 2, my ears are open.
Click to expand...
I personally think that it is important enough for this section - since I joined the north pacific, it has always seemed like a region with an emphasis on freedom, and I think that this should be expressed in the constitution.
Then again, I'm out of the loop, and I'll defer to your judgement here.
 
nish81:
Unterwasserseestaat:
If you think it's important enough to put at the front of the document under Article I section 2, my ears are open.
Click to expand...
I personally think that it is important enough for this section - since I joined the north pacific, it has always seemed like a region with an emphasis on freedom, and I think that this should be expressed in the constitution.
Then again, I'm out of the loop, and I'll defer to your judgement here.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I never really liked that one line. It just doesn't seem to fit well, doesn't flow correctly, stands out and sounds awkward. I don't think we lose anything by cutting it out, since it really doesn't involve nation's rights, but governmental responsibilites.
 
^ I imagine that would be determined by the members of the RA who choose to request or not to request impeachment. I guess I'll trust the region to decide what's in its best interests.
 
Unter, my reference to the term limits discussion was a short discussion where I pointed out that the original term limits language impliiedly took effect when a player was elected to an office, and that for the one originally elected to a term, the length of their service, whether one day or the full three months, did not matter.

In this context, removall of the sentence concerning a nation's soveriegnty would force use of implication to show respect for each nation's soveriegnty in the Constitution, rther than by the presence of a direct declarative sentene.

Since that language is already there and currently part of our law, I would leave well enough alone. Otherwise some would argue that the Constitution no longer protects or respects a nation's soveriegnty, and thus, that the region could interfere with it. That would be a loopholebig enough that some would-be or have-been tyrants would be glad to use to their advantage.

edited to fix typos and clarify a couple of sentences.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Unter, my reference to the term limits discussio n was a short discussion where I pointed out that the language impliiedly took effect when a player was elected to an office, and that for the one originally elected to a term, and that the length of their service, whether one day or the full three months, did not matter.
In this context, removall of the sentence concerning a nation's soveriegnty would force use of it by implication, rther than by a direct declarative sentene. Since it is already there and currently part of ur law, I would leave well enough alone. Otherwise some would argue that the Constitution no longer protects or respects a nation's soveriegnit, and thus that the region could interfere with it. That would be a loophole that some would-be or have been tyrants would be glad to use to their advantage.
Click to expand...
I think the point here is to have a document that will provide us with a stable structure for a democratic government, not to provide us with ultimately useless arguments in the case of a delegate deciding they no longer care for the document.
 
:yes:

I have no problem with the changes. I can see what your saying Grosse about the sovereign rights of nations, although personally I think Unter has covered it fine. My veiw on these hypothetical tyrant issues has always been that a constitution won't prevent someone from going off the deep end.

F&P:
tangled jungle of color
Click to expand...

He he, I think that should enter the dictionary as slang for the constitution.
 
Heft, explicit is better than implicit language, and I'm not sure that because some feel that a concept is basically implicit and not be stated explicitly, does not mean that others will see the implication. Since the sentence orginated as a direct response to actions that occurred during the Great Bight and Pixiedance eras, it is part of our regional history and thus, deserves an express mention in response.

There are several variations of the ultimate point, but the saying basically goes "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it." I for one do not want to open the door to repeat the troubled era that have been seen in The North Pacific. The last time was enough for me.
 
Why does it seem as if changes designed to clean up and tighten the constitution always end up getting the same response from you, Gross? "Remember Pixiedance and ebil Ivan! Vote no on referendum 24!"

Unless you have a criticism that actually is based on the proposal and not fearmongering, well, stop posting?

Should also note that designing a govering document, literally the foundation of the regional government, as a reaction to something is not what I would consider good policy, to say the least.
 
Heft:
Unless you have a criticism that actually is based on the proposal and not fearmongering, well, stop posting?
Click to expand...
In others words, unless I agree with you, I should drop dead? That only positions that you agree with can be posted here?

Since when do you have the right to decide who can speak here? That is the sort of thing this region went through during Pixiedance in particular, and I think you ill serve the region by adopting such an attitude here, especially in the regional assembly. I think you owe mw and the rest of the Regional Assembly an apology.

As I understamd Unter's intent he believes that it is possible to edit the Constitution without making any substantive changes. My objections have been where I believe he is proposing a substantive change, and those need to be separately and clearly discussed. And I will continue to speak out when any of the changes Unter proposes in this particular project appear to mark a substantive change.
 
Apology? May have been a bit harsher than my usual tone, but it was more a response to seeing you once again pull out the "Remember Pixiedance?" lines, which are not actual points or arguments, just baseless fearmongering, and one of the things that has been locking this region in the past for too long.

Shit happened, move on.

Bringing up ghosts of nearly two years ago when there is no reason for it is more of an insult to the Regional Assembly and this region than anything I've said.

If you have an actual argument other than zomg ivan, than that's wonderful. Trying to label me as an opponent to democracy or legitimate argument is simply trying to mislead (the region doesn't have enough legitimate arguing going on a lot of the time, imo). It's not that you disagree with me, but that you aren't actually saying anything.

Do you really believe this constitution would matter if a delegate went rogue? No. You could whine and point out how illegal the delegate's actions are, but it won't have any effect. Having gone through that already, you should understand that. So stop worrying about building ammunition into the document and instead focus on turning it into a good, effective democratic system.
 
Otherwise some would argue that the Constitution no longer protects or respects a nation's soveriegnty, and thus, that the region could interfere with it. That would be a loopholebig enough that some would-be or have-been tyrants would be glad to use to their advantage.
Click to expand...
It is certainly possible that an individual could come along and argue such things. But would it be a reasonable argument, especially given the modified Art I Sec 1 part 1?

I think the reason that some of us would have a problem with the argument contra tyrannos that you are presenting is that you are asking us to project to a hypothetical future time when we are confronted with someone who is willfully disregarding the Constitution, and asking us now to write a Constitution to help prevent that individual from willfully disregarding the Constitution. This is clearly impossible, unless we can write hypnotic pro-democracy phrases into the document (see OOC below).

Completely beside the point, here is a happy discovery:
TNP Constitution:
Preamble.

WE, the Nations of The North Pacific (TNP), mindful of the inherent rights to justice, security, democratic regional leadership and national sovereignty do hereby proclaim this constitution to be the living and growing document of our liberties. This document shall be the foundation of our culture, society and law and shall be respected in spirit and in word by all residents of The North Pacific.

Fully cognizant of our role as a Feeder Region within the online game of NationStatesTM, and acknowledging that our character as such involves interaction with players new to that game,we avow to play fairly, educate where necessary, applaud when appropriate, and above all to remember that this is a game.
Click to expand...

Here it is explicitly, which is possibly why I wanted to delete it in the first place. Schuauzer, do you feel a mention in the preamble is strong enough? I think it sets an excellent tone for the rest of the document (and would therefore leave it untouched in the editing process).

(OOC: concerned about subliminal smilies now. :fish: <--Did anyone else see "Vote4Flem"?)
 
Preambles are aspirational and do not confer any substantive rights or procedural limitations or protections.

I've tried to think of a single instance in RL where a preamble (say, to the United States Constitution) has been used by the US Supreme Court as a basis to confer a substantive right or procedural limit, and none come to mind.....not even the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights wherein Justice William O. Douglas asserted a constitutional right of privacy was based on it.

I still believe it is a better balance to explicitly state recognition of a player's national sovereignty as well as the limitations in the Constitution that concern its existence.

And it may be coincidence, but we have to recognize that threats to TNP and our system of constitutional government still exist. It is no accident that every time we approach elections, there are dramatic increases in endo-tarting by players who are outside the constitution, and there are always the lexiconians. So suggesting the potential of threats in the future, based upon both our region's past and present, is not a hypothetical exercise -- it is, instead, prudent and responsible foresight.
 
I believe that the decision would be up to our courts to decide whether a term in our Constitution confers legal rights. Schnauser, if you, as retired TNP Chief Justice, would not have felt comfortable pointing to a declaration of sovereignty in the preamble as means for making a ruling, I will defer to that, and request that the sentence not be deleted.

For the potential future threats to the region, we were specifically referring to a future tyrant who will seek to bend and break the Constitution. In this case we are assuming both that such a person will flout the Constitution, and that the Constitution can be sound enough to prevent that from occuring. This is absurd, since for that to happen one would have to both heed and not heed the Constitution. A cooked-up "regional emergency" is far more likely an avenue of attack on civil liberties, and I would welcome any specific insight on how to combat that in another thread.
 
Here is a reposting of my proposed amendment to the Constitution, it is the same as in the first post, except for retaining "All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign." in Art I section 1 part 1. I have also adjusted the numbering of parts in Art I section I to reflect how they would be in the actual document.

COLOR KEY:
Blue bold means additions
Red strikethru means deletions
Click to expand...
Here I have ceased using green as a placeholder.

Article I of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:
Article I
Section 1: Rights of Nations
1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection, adding or withdrawing endorsements and UN membership.
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the United Nations shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.
4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding UN member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a UN member.
5. 4. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the impeachment of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with this Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.
6. 5. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.
7. 6. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer, represented by counsel of choice. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven   to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
8. 7. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code.
8. If, as a matter of security, any nation should be ejected or banned from the region or forums, that Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security, the ejected or banned Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The UN Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to this Constitution or to the Legal Code.
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.

Section 2: Limits of Power
In order to uphold the aforementioned rights of nations, the government of The North Pacific shall be subject to these limitations:
1. Any nation holding office in the Regional Government of The North Pacific shall act only in the best interests of the Region.
2. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution.
3. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
4. As regional security is also a right of resident nations, in the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.
5. If a nation submits a petition co-signed by a fellow nation taking issue with Regional governance, the Cabinet shall be required to review and issue a statement addressing the petition.
6. No government official shall have the authority to change the designated off-site forum for regional governance without approval of a majority of the members of the Regional Assembly.
7. The UN Delegate and Vice Delegate for the Region shall have no authority to act in any other manner with respect to the Regional Government, unless such authority is expressly granted to the Delegate or Vice Delegate through process of Amendment of this Constitution, and not by implication.
8. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

Article II, section 3 of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:
Art.II:
Section 3. Jurisdiction, Review of Regional Government Action.

1) Nations who register to vote in this Region are subject to all the provisions of this Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, or other laws including but not limited to the provisions of Article III; Section 1, Clause 5 of this Constitution. Each Nation entitled to a vote in the manner prescribed under this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code, is entitled to the equal treatment of that Nation's right to vote.
2) The UN Delegate for The North Pacific, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister, any deputy Cabinet minister, and the Attorney General shall act only in the best interests of the Region. Should any Regional Assembly member believe that the actions of the Delegate, the Prime Minister, or any other official in the Regional Government are inappropriate, or would serve the Region better if enacted as permanent law, that Nation may draft a petition, describing the action taken, to be signed by at least one other member, and then posted in a appropriate thread in the Regional off-site forum for the Prime Minister's office. The Cabinet shall review all such petitions. After deciding on the proper action to be taken, whether it is to overturn that action or to adopt that action as permanent law, the Cabinet shall put its decision up for a referendum of the Regional Assembly. If a majority vote is cast by the Regional Assembly (with a quorum of voters participating) in favor of ratification of the Cabinet's decision is approved by the Regional Assembly, it shall be carried out immediately.
3) No government official shall have the authority to change the designated off-site forum for regional governance without approval of a majority of the members of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
 
8. If, as a matter of security, any nation should be ejected or banned from the region or forums, that  Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security, the ejected or banned Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter.  The UN Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to this Constitution or to the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

There is a significant limitation in the original language that is adversely affected by your proposed editing that I think you need to take a second look at.

The phrase "Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security" eseentially limits this power to those officials of the government who handle regional security, i.e., the Delegate. the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, and possibly the Minister of External Affairs and the Attorney General, the Speaker (on behalf of the Security Council, or a Justice of the Court if there was some sort of ex parte proceeding) could come under that clause. This was the clause that authoritzed Flemingovia to act as he did the other week. This language needs to be clearly preserved somewhere in the Constitution. My other concern is that as originally enacted the declaration and the request for judicial review could be prior to the actual ejection. As you propose to edit it, judicial recourse would not be available until after the ejection or banning.

That's the only concern that I see now that wasn't that clear to me in the original draft. Is there a solution?
 
As I'm looking at this now the issue seems to boil down into two parts:
Art I Sec 1
8. If, as a matter of security, any nation should be ejected or banned from the region or forums, that  Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter.

Art I Sec 2
4. As regional security is also a right of resident nations, in the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.
Click to expand...
(these are the edited passages, btw)

Contrasting the deleted phrase "Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security..." with I.2.4, it looks like all authority to act in an emergency manner comes from the RA ("nations of the region") or the Security Council ("their representatives"). Most of the positions you cite above don't explicitly have the authority to delcare that an expulsion or banning is an urgent necessity. The SC does, maybe the PM because the powers are vague, but everyone else should be able to take a percieved security threat to the SC or PM without prejudice to the percieved threat. Is that something that would be beneficial to put into the SC section?

Basically, Art I Sec 2 Part 4 already limits the authority of declaring bannings or ejections a necessity to a more narrow scope than you point out above.

Also, I think it's weird, though appropriate, to have it in there, since the concept of a forum ban does not come up elsewhere in the Constitution, and we have generally kept forum admin duties separate from the government. Since Flem (as admin) was justified via TOS violations for the forum ban I don't think the language would have changed that aspect. For Flem (as PM) removing the MoIIA from his position, he sought immediate rulings from the SC and the Courts, so I think he would be covered by Art. I Sec. 2 Part 4 as edited above.

One more weird thing is that only admin are actually capable of instituting a forum ban, so only admin (an extra-governmental position) could be authorized to do so to protect security. In this case I think it would be redundant to point out that the only people capable of instituting a forum ban would be the only ones allowed to do so.

Also, I must've missed the right to review pre-ban, and agree that it should be kept. I would incorporate it as follows:
Art I Sec 1
8. If, as a matter of security, any nation should be ejected or banned from the region or forums, or ruled that ejection or banning is an urgent necessity, that Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter.
Click to expand...
 
Unter:
Most of the positions you cite above don't explicitly have the authority to delcare that an expulsion or banning is an urgent necessity. The SC does, maybe the PM because the powers are vague, but everyone else should be able to take a percieved security threat to the SC or PM without prejudice to the percieved threat. Is that something that would be beneficial to put into the SC section?
Click to expand...

Notice that the current language does not limit how a declaration of urgent necessity comes about, but the requirement of the emergency language provision more or less limits the officials who could issue it to the handful I mentioned before (based upon the "necessary and proper powers" clause.)

For example, the AG could take a security threat to the Court as an emergency ex parte proceeding -- there isn't any question in my mind that as a civil proceeding, the court could act on a request ex parte, issue a ex parte emergency order that contains the declaration (as a proportionate temporary remedy) and then schedule a hearing when the interested parties could be present to provide the prompt judicial review.

What the original provision had in mind is this -- there can be different ways based upon each unique set of circumstances to reach the point that a declaration is made; once it is made, then there is recourse to a judicial review proceeding. So even if the PM, the Cabinet. and the Delegate, and a quorum of the Security Council were somehow not around for a whole day, then there will still be a way for, say, the NPIA Director, to take the information to someone (the Court directly or through the AG) who can act on the information.

Maybe we need language somewhere (a new section in Article VI (the one on expulsions and bannings) perhaps) to assure that this flexibility is assured. Adding language to the SC section doesn't cover the use of an emergency proceeding in the Court, even though it might make the SC's authority more explicit, although its pretty clear with the current provisions that it is there.)

Unter:
Also, I must've missed the right to review pre-ban, and agree that it should be kept. I would incorporate it as follows:
Art I Sec 1
8. If, as a matter of security, any nation should be ejected or banned from the region or forums, or ruled that ejection or banning is an urgent necessity, that Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I think "ruled" doesn't fit the remainder of that sentence. Who ruled? The Nation that should be ejected or banned? There's no other actor the way that is written.

Perhaps "....or it is declared that ejection or banning of that nation is an matter of urgent necessity, ...." At least then "it" is the actor and not the nation that is the subject of the action.
 
I can see your reasoning here, but it seems a bit excessive. Probably because of this phrase:
if the PM, the Cabinet. and the Delegate, and a quorum of the Security Council were somehow not around for a whole day...
Click to expand...
I think that if this were to happen that our government will be a failure. One of the useful parts of being such a large region is that threats don't pop up and become urgent matters in one day, which is why democracy and security are even possible in feeders. Also, if the Delegate isn't around who will carry out the order?

I hadn't thought of going through a civil action in the courts to get ban authorization, I think this would be something to explicitly put in Art VI, right now it either stipulates a referendum or a trial and verdict as prerequisites to banning. We also may want to clarify that representatives of the RA may also authorize banning when it is urgent in Art VI.

For the last bit, how does "or have it ruled that ejection or banning is an urgent necessity" sound? I like ruled instead of declared because it implies that someone with authority on the matter is saying it.
 
Unterwasserseestaat:
I can see your reasoning here, but it seems a bit excessive. Probably because of this phrase:
if the PM, the Cabinet. and the Delegate, and a quorum of the Security Council were somehow not around for a whole day...
Click to expand...
I think that if this were to happen that our government will be a failure. One of the useful parts of being such a large region is that threats don't pop up and become urgent matters in one day, which is why democracy and security are even possible in feeders. Also, if the Delegate isn't around who will carry out the order?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the 'ejection" and "banning" can be forum-related, and not just NS-region-play-related. While that example seems to be extreme, i; it is merely my way of demonstrating the need to have flexibility built into that process.

If language is going to be added to Article VI, then we'll need to note the role that the Court could play through a civil proeeding, whether ex parte or normally, the Cabinet, and the Security Council in making the initial determination. The Cabinet comes in through the procedure in Article II that permits Cabinet review of a ministerial action, (I haven't had a chance yet to mention it in the Article II thread, but the review provision is more like an administrative appeal to the Cabinet, and that any action from the Cabiney that does not totally affirm the original action by whichever Minister then sends the matter to the RA for a up-or-down vote to accept or reject the Cabinet's action.)

The whole idea is to preserve flexibility in the options for a decision to be made when the need arises.

As to the wording, how about "determined." The problem with "ruled" is that it conveys the impression that makes it sound judicial, even when it isn't a judicial action; 'determined" better fits the "received information and decided roles that different parts of the government could play in a given situation.
 
I think it would be a good clarification to add language to Art VI Sec 2. Here's my first idea, though I am less sure of what specificially we would like to say about the Courts so I'm just going to call it a "judicial ruling" for now. We may also want to add in an extra part outlining the procedure, but for now it's late.
Section 2. Power of Expulsion.

1) The Delegate may not expel a Nation without the express consent of the Nations of the Region by either a referendum vote, with the participation of a quorum, or by a trial and judgment that specifically imposes expulsion as a penalty or in the case of an urgent matter of regional security as referenced in Article I of this Constitution, as determined by representatives of the nations of the region or by judicial ruling.
...
Click to expand...

Also, I like "determined" for Art I Sec 1 part 8.
 
ok so i will read...

Article I of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:
Article I
Section 1: Rights of Nations
1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection, adding or withdrawing endorsements and UN membership.
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances.
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the United Nations shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.

4. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the impeachment of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with this Constitution,
5. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.
6. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer, represented by counsel of choice. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
7. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code.
8. If, as a matter of security, any nation should be ejected or banned from the region or forums, that Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter.
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

Section 2: Limits of Power
In order to uphold the aforementioned rights of nations, the government of The North Pacific shall be subject to these limitations:
1. Any nation holding office in the Regional Government of The North Pacific shall act only in the best interests of the Region.
2. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution.
3. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
4. As regional security is also a right of resident nations, in the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.
5. If a nation submits a petition co-signed by a fellow nation taking issue with Regional governance, the Cabinet shall be required to review and issue a statement addressing the petition.
6. No government official shall have the authority to change the designated off-site forum for regional governance without approval of a majority of the members of the Regional Assembly.
7. The UN Delegate and Vice Delegate for the Region shall have no authority to act in any other manner with respect to the Regional Government, unless such authority is expressly granted to the Delegate or Vice Delegate through process of Amendment of this Constitution, and not by implication.
8. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

Article II, section 3 of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:
Art.II:
Section 3. Jurisdiction, Review of Regional Government Action.

1) Nations who register to vote in this Region are subject to all the provisions of this Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, or other laws including but not limited to the provisions of Article III; Section 1, Clause 5 of this Constitution. Each Nation entitled to a vote in the manner prescribed under this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code, is entitled to the equal treatment of that Nation's right to vote.
2) The UN Delegate for The North Pacific, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister, any deputy Cabinet minister, and the Attorney General shall act only in the best interests of the Region. Should any Regional Assembly member believe that the actions of the Delegate, the Prime Minister, or any other official in the Regional Government are inappropriate, or would serve the Region better if enacted as permanent law, that Nation may draft a petition, describing the action taken, to be signed by at least one other member, and then posted in a appropriate thread in the Regional off-site forum for the Prime Minister's office. The Cabinet shall review all such petitions. After deciding on the proper action to be taken, whether it is to overturn that action or to adopt that action as permanent law, the Cabinet shall put its decision up for a referendum of the Regional Assembly. If a majority vote is cast by the Regional Assembly (with a quorum of voters participating) in favor of ratification of the Cabinet's decision is approved by the Regional Assembly, it shall be carried out immediately.
3) No government official shall have the authority to change the designated off-site forum for regional governance without approval of a majority of the members of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
 
Hey, thanks for bringing this up again, I've been kind of in space lately. I think that Schnauzer has come up with his own solution to what I proposed to do with Article II. Originally I had thought that I would go through Articles I, II and III and get it all at once. That doesn't really look like it will come together, so I think that this should be put up for a vote on its own.

One note: I think I had an utter brainfart between drafts, and I think I wanted Article II, section 3 to be changed thusly:
Article II, section 3 of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:
Art.II:
Section 3. Jurisdiction, Review of Regional Government Action.

1) Nations who register to vote in this Region are subject to all the provisions of this Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, or other laws including but not limited to the provisions of Article III; Section 1, Clause 5 of this Constitution. Each Nation entitled to a vote in the manner prescribed under this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code, is entitled to the equal treatment of that Nation's right to vote.
2) The UN Delegate for The North Pacific, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister, any deputy Cabinet minister, and the Attorney General shall act only in the best interests of the Region. Should any Regional Assembly member believe that the actions of the Delegate, the Prime Minister, or any other official in the Regional Government are inappropriate, or would serve the Region better if enacted as permanent law, that Nation may draft a petition, describing the action taken, to be signed by at least one other member, and then posted in a appropriate thread in the Regional off-site forum for the Prime Minister's office. The Cabinet shall review all such petitions. After deciding on the proper action to be taken, whether it is to overturn that action or to adopt that action as permanent law, the Cabinet shall put its decision up for a referendum of the Regional Assembly. If a majority vote is cast by the Regional Assembly (with a quorum of voters participating) in favor of ratification of the Cabinet's decision is approved by the Regional Assembly, it shall be carried out immediately.
3) No government official shall have the authority to change the designated off-site forum for regional governance without approval of a majority of the members of the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...

Here's a quote from a much earlier post about what would be done with the content of Art II section 3:
Article II section 3 part 2 would be taken and split up into section 2 part 1 (it seems to be a verbatim repeat of Article I part 2) and section 2 part 5.
Click to expand...
It looks like the new Article I section 2 part 5 also needs something about the RA being able to vote in assent to the Cabinet's statement to make it functionally equivalent. I'll think about it for a day or two. Suggestions would also be welcome.
 
MR SPEAKER...I REQUEST THIS GET MOVED BACK TO PRELIMINARY, AS WE STILL HAVE TO DEBATE THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS SIMPLIFICATION.

so in summary, these will be how the constitution will read.

Article I
Section 1: Rights of Nations
1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection, adding or withdrawing endorsements and UN membership.
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances.
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the United Nations shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.

4. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the impeachment of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with this Constitution,
5. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.
6. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer, represented by counsel of choice. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
7. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution or the Legal Code.
8. If, as a matter of security, any nation should be ejected or banned from the region or forums, that Nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter.
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

Section 2: Limits of Power
In order to uphold the aforementioned rights of nations, the government of The North Pacific shall be subject to these limitations:
1. Any nation holding office in the Regional Government of The North Pacific shall act only in the best interests of the Region.
2. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of this Constitution.
3. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
4. As regional security is also a right of resident nations, in the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of this Constitution.
5. If a nation submits a petition co-signed by a fellow nation taking issue with Regional governance, the Cabinet shall be required to review and issue a statement addressing the petition.
6. No government official shall have the authority to change the designated off-site forum for regional governance without approval of a majority of the members of the Regional Assembly.
7. The UN Delegate and Vice Delegate for the Region shall have no authority to act in any other manner with respect to the Regional Government, unless such authority is expressly granted to the Delegate or Vice Delegate through process of Amendment of this Constitution, and not by implication.
8. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard this Constitution or the Legal Code.
Section 3. Jurisdiction, Review of Regional Government Action.

1) Nations who register to vote in this Region are subject to all the provisions of this Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, or other laws including but not limited to the provisions of Article III; Section 1, Clause 5 of this Constitution. Each Nation entitled to a vote in the manner prescribed under this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code, is entitled to the equal treatment of that Nation's right to vote.
 
freedom and pride:
MR SPEAKER...I REQUEST THIS GET MOVED BACK TO PRELIMINARY, AS WE STILL HAVE TO DEBATE THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS SIMPLIFICATION.
Click to expand...
Do you have a reason why? I'd be willing to put off the change I've made two posts ago if you think it would be pulling something at the last minute. My post above stated that I no longer think it necessary to 'edit' the entire Constitution in one fell swoop. If you don't like this proposal as it stands on its own, I'd be eager to know why and to try to address your concerns.
 
Unter, even if you limit your primary editing project to the first three articles, there will be some changes in the later articles to reflect the proposed editing -- primarily Article VI, based on the discussion so far, and I believe you wanted to make some editing changes to Article IV (having to do with centralizing the majorities needed to pass different things in the Regional Assembly.

I suspect, though that a lot less with need to be done with Articles IV through VII.

The only other constitutional amendments that may arise may be with the wotk of the ministry study commission and to address the issue of jury selection and trial evidence presentation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top