mr_sniffles
TNPer
As deliberated by Cabinet and proposed by Flem:
Oath Amendment
- Thread starter mr_sniffles
- Start date
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Technical question.
Is this intended to amend the Regional Assembly oath requirement, which is presrcibed in the Constitution, or is this intended to amend the oath of office requirement prescribed in TNP Law 1?
They are two totally different things.
Is this intended to amend the Regional Assembly oath requirement, which is presrcibed in the Constitution, or is this intended to amend the oath of office requirement prescribed in TNP Law 1?
They are two totally different things.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
TNP Law# 1. As far as I know, there's no mention of the Oath for RA members in the Constitution.
The only problem I see is that this will create two classes of RA members, those not held to these slightly more stringent rules and those who took the original oath. Requiring all citizens to re-take their oath would be a logistical nightmare, though FEC's organization skills do seem impressive. All I can do is pass on the message...
So technically, we're creating a new NP law (through the legal code) but to advertise what this bill really does, we call it the Oath Amendment. Sorry for the confusion but to sum it up in two words, that's what it is.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Constitution Article II Section 3:
Now, TNP Law 1 provides in part:
TNP Law 1:
I don't think we can contradict the constitutional oath with a statute.
We could amend the constitution to add the change into the current RA application oath. or we could require accepted applicants into the RA to take a second oath, and amend TNP Law 1 so it also applies to members of the RA. There is a transition provision in TNP Law 1 that required existing officeholders at the time Law 1 was enacted to take the oath, and there were no problems with the provisions that implemented it as to those who were then holding an office. So there is a precedent in TNP for requiring an additional oath to retain office.
Hersfold Edit: Fixed tags. Quote tags don't need "quotes" inside them.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
I think simply amending the Constitutional oath then allowing the MoIIA to slowly integrate new and old members (those who need a poke to see if they still wish to remain on the citizen lists) with the new oath. This is of course going under the assumption that active members will willingly take a new oath.
The purpose of this amendment is not to require a second oath (headaches aside) but to issue a new standard for citizenship, we need to state legally that treason is not allowable if you wish to remain or become a citizen. I know a definition of treason and Court dates could also settle this but this amendment seems the most simplistic and fair to all members.
The purpose of this amendment is not to require a second oath (headaches aside) but to issue a new standard for citizenship, we need to state legally that treason is not allowable if you wish to remain or become a citizen. I know a definition of treason and Court dates could also settle this but this amendment seems the most simplistic and fair to all members.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
AS I recall the topic of defioning treason was discussed about a year ago, but there was never any concensus reach on what that should be.
That is a different appropach since it would enact a crime by defining it, and then at that time there was a desire to exempt treason from the statute of limitations. That appropach is also still available.
That is a different appropach since it would enact a crime by defining it, and then at that time there was a desire to exempt treason from the statute of limitations. That appropach is also still available.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Yes, and I'm saying that is much too complex and way too much of a hassle. This would effectively do the same by requiring the standard minimum to be a citizen to not commit treason, treason being the buzzword and not the standard legal tradition but I feel the following statement sums it up pretty well:
'
By having it part of the minimum requirement to be a citizen, we can automatically deal with those who hide behind duality or any other godforsaken excuse to sell us out.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
If we're going the constitutional amendment route (the only sane way of dealing with the RA oath since it is already in the Constitution), then there is a way to provide for a transition period so implement the requirement as to all existing RA members as part of the amendment.
(The implementation process would be in a law that would be a separate section of the constitutional amendment proposal, but which would adopt a new TNP Law. We've used this appropach several times -- and the whole package is adioted as a constitutional amendment, even though the new law is incorporated into the Legal Code and not into the Constitution.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Can we honestly force upon new responsibilities without the express permission of each and every member abiding to it? ie- automatically make every RA member follow an oath, they didn't personally agree to but because it was a general oath of membership?
I'll pass it along if there's support but personally as a citizen and not the Speaker, hell no to that.
I'll pass it along if there's support but personally as a citizen and not the Speaker, hell no to that.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Well, TNP Law 1 did just that -- and imposed penalties for noncompliance,
So there is precedent for doing sol and it will be the RA that will be voting on it first.
So there is precedent for doing sol and it will be the RA that will be voting on it first.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
RA membership is nowhere near as high or varied as it is now. I think a slow, more gradual process is necessary starting with new applicants then moving on. But this depends on perspectives other than ours right now.
It may help other RA members to know the reasons why I proposed the change to our society which Mr Sniffles outlined in his first post (whether it is implimented in a const change or a law I will leave to the experts to determine.)
Almost from the moment of the adoption of the current constitution, a loophole has been evident that has been constantly exploited by those who wish us ill.
That loophole has two parts:
First, it is absurdly easy to become an RA member. Post the oath and you are in - there is no questioning of it, no examination of the applicant, no decision to be made. People treat becoming a RA member as if it is a right for anybody. And perhaps it is.
Now this would not be too much of a problem if the RA oath was watertight. But, as I shall show below it is not.
Second, the constitution was written consistently refering to nations. Nations are covered by the constitution, not the players.
Consider for a moment the absurdity of this. Nations are inanimate. It is players who make decisions. It is as if our RL laws concerning murder covered murder weapons, and we put them on trial, not the murderers. asking a nation to take an oath is as stupid as asking a sword or a dagger to promise not to stab anyone. What matters is how they are weilded.
This has been exploited almost from the moment the constitution was written, with players who are actively working to take over or undermine this region maintaining a nation within the RA of the region, even, theoretically, able to become ministers or delegate.
All the player need to do is to be careful not to attack the region in any way with the nation specifically put into the RA. They can do what they like with their other puppets.
Now I was involved in drawing up this constitution, and I KNOW this was not the intent of the drafters. But it is the situation we are in, and it leads to several problems.
1. It means, in a war situation, that enemy powers cannot easily be forum banned, as they have RA "rights".
2. It means we have a potentially large security problem. Not least because discussions and decisions by the RA are known to those attacking us. Even should we decide at any point to have a RA discussion behind closed doors, it woud be immediately ineffective.
3. It means that the RA oath is meaningless, since it binds the nation not the player. A player can sign the oath with a puppet quite easily, then attack the region with other nations and forum accounts.
4. It means we are, frankly, the cause of much bewilderment and laughter in other regions. I do not know of any other region who would embrace so readily players who are actively attacking the region.
5. It means that our justice system is ineffective. We can pass whatever laws we like, but if a player is careful, they are untouchable.
Please note, what I have said above is informed by, but does not specifically refer to aspects of our conflict with the Lexicon, nor trials which have or are being carried out in the region. I just think there is an unforseen hole in our constitution that we ought to patch.
Almost from the moment of the adoption of the current constitution, a loophole has been evident that has been constantly exploited by those who wish us ill.
That loophole has two parts:
First, it is absurdly easy to become an RA member. Post the oath and you are in - there is no questioning of it, no examination of the applicant, no decision to be made. People treat becoming a RA member as if it is a right for anybody. And perhaps it is.
Now this would not be too much of a problem if the RA oath was watertight. But, as I shall show below it is not.
Second, the constitution was written consistently refering to nations. Nations are covered by the constitution, not the players.
Consider for a moment the absurdity of this. Nations are inanimate. It is players who make decisions. It is as if our RL laws concerning murder covered murder weapons, and we put them on trial, not the murderers. asking a nation to take an oath is as stupid as asking a sword or a dagger to promise not to stab anyone. What matters is how they are weilded.
This has been exploited almost from the moment the constitution was written, with players who are actively working to take over or undermine this region maintaining a nation within the RA of the region, even, theoretically, able to become ministers or delegate.
All the player need to do is to be careful not to attack the region in any way with the nation specifically put into the RA. They can do what they like with their other puppets.
Now I was involved in drawing up this constitution, and I KNOW this was not the intent of the drafters. But it is the situation we are in, and it leads to several problems.
1. It means, in a war situation, that enemy powers cannot easily be forum banned, as they have RA "rights".
2. It means we have a potentially large security problem. Not least because discussions and decisions by the RA are known to those attacking us. Even should we decide at any point to have a RA discussion behind closed doors, it woud be immediately ineffective.
3. It means that the RA oath is meaningless, since it binds the nation not the player. A player can sign the oath with a puppet quite easily, then attack the region with other nations and forum accounts.
4. It means we are, frankly, the cause of much bewilderment and laughter in other regions. I do not know of any other region who would embrace so readily players who are actively attacking the region.
5. It means that our justice system is ineffective. We can pass whatever laws we like, but if a player is careful, they are untouchable.
Please note, what I have said above is informed by, but does not specifically refer to aspects of our conflict with the Lexicon, nor trials which have or are being carried out in the region. I just think there is an unforseen hole in our constitution that we ought to patch.
And incidentally, I would require existing RA members to take the revised oath.
dont pick it up
TNPer
So if current RA members dont take this oath, if passed they will be out of the RA?
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
This is how the amendment can be written so as to take immediate effect, and provide a short implementation period for current RA members to subscribe to the revised oath. It could be enforced by a temporary mask for suspended RA members until they post the amended oath:
edited to fix code problems and correct typos.
edited to fix code problems and correct typos.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
7 days is way too short for up to 80 RA members.
dont pick it up
TNPer
agreed
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
The current RA members would have as long as they like; they just wouldn't be able to participate after 7 days unless they complete the oath. Lenghtening the period would just increase confusion as to who could vote in the interim and perhaps allow those who don't want to comply possible time to create mischief. since Flem is basing this on there being a security loophole, rapid implementation best serves security.
You haven't suggested an alternative. I don't believe that a lengthy period would serve the interests of maintaining regional security. Keep in mind that active members of the RA are used to seven day cycles; most of its activities are based on the seven day cycle.
In addition, because this amendment would be voted on by the RA, members would know this change was coming and could make preparations to check in to take in oath. And they would have some warning after it passes the RA since Cabinet approval would come after the RA.
You haven't suggested an alternative. I don't believe that a lengthy period would serve the interests of maintaining regional security. Keep in mind that active members of the RA are used to seven day cycles; most of its activities are based on the seven day cycle.
In addition, because this amendment would be voted on by the RA, members would know this change was coming and could make preparations to check in to take in oath. And they would have some warning after it passes the RA since Cabinet approval would come after the RA.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Alright, I do see the point of it though not entirely agreeing. I'll try to fix up the code and add it on, ok?
mr_sniffles
TNPer
That would be defining treason, then it moves on to who falls under this law, citizens or nations residing in the NP, then what is the textbook definition of war, what is a war criminal, what rights do they deserve, and so on until your brain explodes.
Namyeknom
TNPer
The argument over what constitutes war is going to happen, no matter where this legislation goes. I would prefere we defined it now quite frankly. Because in 6 months time, 'waging war' might mean something totally different.
Also I am extremely worried by:
I hope this means that all an individuals nations would be barred from voting, no matter when they were created or used. This seems poorly worded, as its not the nations voting, its the individual. The nations never had any right to vote, otherwise we'd get one vote per nation, not one vote per individual.
I sincerely hope it does not mean a retroactive application to an individuals votes, which I reasonably sure would be illegal at all levels.
My apologies for going at this, I quite like the general intent. I just think it could so easily be mis-used if we don't do it properly.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I suspect the intent in the "past, present, and future" phrasing was to cover nations that a player had previously placed in TNP (or which was founded here by Nationstates), that is not currently in TNP, but that the player would return to TNP in the future.
As to defining "war" or "treason" it is definitely a slippery slope. In NS, we don't have the benefit of custom and usage of RL international law to define "war" nor the benefit of the common law tradition that helped to define "treason" in the RL U.S. Constitution.
Namyeknom, if you want to propose legislation, maybe we can try to come up with a satisfactory solution this time around. That discussion arose in the context of the statute of limitations legislation that the RA passed early this year, and I suspect that the earlier discussion faded away because no specific definitions were ever agreed to. I siad then that if the RA could reach an agreement on definitons, I'd then support an exception to the general statute of limitations; but we have to have the criminal offense clearly defined first in order to fairly apply an exception.
@ Sniffles: I think I found the code problems and fixed them in that post.
As to defining "war" or "treason" it is definitely a slippery slope. In NS, we don't have the benefit of custom and usage of RL international law to define "war" nor the benefit of the common law tradition that helped to define "treason" in the RL U.S. Constitution.
Namyeknom, if you want to propose legislation, maybe we can try to come up with a satisfactory solution this time around. That discussion arose in the context of the statute of limitations legislation that the RA passed early this year, and I suspect that the earlier discussion faded away because no specific definitions were ever agreed to. I siad then that if the RA could reach an agreement on definitons, I'd then support an exception to the general statute of limitations; but we have to have the criminal offense clearly defined first in order to fairly apply an exception.
@ Sniffles: I think I found the code problems and fixed them in that post.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Two more days than the following is going to Formal Discussion: