FD - Oath Amend

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
As proposed by Grosse and the previous Cabinet:

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT related to the oath for the application for Regional Assembly membership

Section 1.

Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 3 is amended to read as follows:

3) In their request, Nations will be required to post a link to their TNP member Nation and their UN member Nation at NationStates.net, and in doing so, verify that they have taken the following oath:
"I, (Forum Name), as the leader of the (Official Full National Name), pledge to obey the Constitution and Laws of The North Pacific Region, and to act as a responsible member of its society.  I understand that if my Nation leaves The North Pacific region for reasons other than participation in North Pacific Army deployments that I may be stripped of my right to vote and required to reapply.  I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific.I understand that if any nation under my control directly wages war against the North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against the North Pacific, this shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region.  I understand that my registration of, or attempt to register, multiple Nations to vote in The North Pacific shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. In this manner, I petition the Regional Government of The North Pacific region for membership in the Regional Assembly."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Section 2. This Amendment shall take effect upon its adoption pursuant to Article VII of the Constitution. Current members of the Regional Assembly are required to subscribe and execute the oath as modified by Section 1 of this Amendment within one week after this Amendment is adopted pursuant to Article VII of the Constitution.

Section 3, If, once seven days has elapsed after this Amendment takes effect, a member of the Regional Assembly has not executed the amended oath, they shall be suspended from membership in the Regional Assembly as well as any office or position they may otherwise hold in The North Pacific. This suspension shall be enforced by the use of a temporary mask by forum administration. Once the amended oath has been duly executed, the suspension shall be lifted promptly and without delay.
Click to expand...
 
I would like an assurance that if a player has a nation that is not a part of TNP but is a vader that is involved with an invasion of a region that the NPA are called on to liberate that this would not constitute being at war with TNP itself.....
 
Daimiaena:
I would like an assurance that if a player has a nation that is not a part of TNP but is a vader that is involved with an invasion of a region that the NPA are called on to liberate that this would not constitute being at war with TNP itself.....
Click to expand...
While, not 100% on the whole legal tom foolery, I believe the restrictions placed in the Wartime Provisions would prevent action against the NPA as counting as oath breaking.

TNP Law 14:
No player maintaining a nation in a region at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities. Any player found doing so will be stripped of membership in the Regional Assembly and subject to banishment from the region. A "region at war" is any region which has made a formal declaration, or made acts of war against The North Pacific, or vice versa, as deemed by decision by the Security Council. War does not constitute actions taken by or against the North Pacific Army unless the conflict meets the conditions above. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty, surrender terms, or similar, is/are recognized.
Click to expand...

Therefore as long as the invading region had not declared war against TNP or agianst which TNP had declared war, participation of RA members other nations would not count as waging war against TNP.

Assuming that kind of arguing would hold up in court.
 
Thanx for that....I had a feeling it was in the constitution somewhere.....I just wanted to make sure there was a distinction....
 
my issue is past present and future. I thought it was good until i reread it when voting. How can we forever exclude people for forgetting to disavow a puppet?
 
it is just the future that bugs me. If someone has a puppet in Lexicon and does not use it against us at all, why should they nit be all0owed to join the RA a year from now?
 
Having the puppet in the Lexicon will not get your citizenship revoked, being a member of the Lexicon and openly aiding their war efforts towards us will.
 
Forever is a long time. Are we really so unwilling to forgive nations who get caught up in a dispute against us? Let's put it another way. Can you think of any TNP players who were once on "the dark side?" Any erstwhile invaders among us? Spies? I bet if you looked hard enough you could even find some old NPO officials.
 
Namyeknom:
Well, that really depends on your definition of 'allies themselves with'.
Click to expand...
Actually, it depends on the facts.

If a region is waging a form of undeclared war on TNP, and one chooses to ally themselves with that other region, the burden would rightfully be on them to show how they didn't ally themselves in waging undeclared war on TNP.

This definition doesn't prevent playing the invaide gamer, but in my view, iit does mean one can't have it both ways where TNP is concerned.
 
I'm reasonably unconcerned about invaders being able to continue their work. I agree this will have virtually no impact.

But while we can sit here now and say just having a puppet in a region at war with us isn't grounds to say someone has broken their oath, what about in 6 months, when there might be someone less moderate in charge. Or when its a useful way of removing a thorn in our side.

If a region is waging a form of undeclared war on TNP, and one chooses to ally themselves with that other region, the burden would rightfully be on them to show how they didn't ally themselves in waging undeclared war on TNP.
Click to expand...

And I am very worried there should ever be a situation in The North Pacific where someone can have their voting rights removed forever, unless they can prove they didn't do something. I believed that was against every principle of justice this region stood for.
 
I would assume, that just as with any other government decision, the court can be petitioned by RA members to investigate the decision, and overturned if required.
 
There are two ways of seeking review of a ministerial decision - judicial review, and Cabinet review which would, if the Cabinet changes the ministerial decision in any way, go to the RA for a vote.

I'm still not sure why there is such resistance to the latter form of review. It has been used in the past, but recent Cabinets seem unwilling to forward their actions on review to the RA.
 
Therefore it wouldn't be forever in every case.....

After the hypothetical war is over their RA status could be re-instated....

Obviously depending on circumstances....

And F&P this isn't just about the Lexicon.....who by the way are not at war with us and therefore even under this oath could still join the RA.....
 
Daimiaena:
Therefore it wouldn't be forever in every case.....

After the hypothetical war is over their RA status could be re-instated....

Obviously depending on circumstances....

And F&P this isn't just about the Lexicon.....who by the way are not at war with us and therefore even under this oath could still join the RA.....
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the amendment says "Past and future"
 
If I understand your question F&P, the player is the one taking the oath, and it covers any contingency concerning the nations that player uses in reference to TNP. A oast nation could be one that has CTE, and is later revived, and future nations are those yet to be created by the same player.

I believe that Flem and the last Cabinet was seeking to cover all possible contingencies so there would not be any loopholes. And from past experience with some of those now in the Lexicon, when they've been active here, those players loved trying to twist loopholes to their advantage. IMHO, it is better to be completely and categorically clean than to give them wiggle room.
 
freedom and pride:
as is given by my first name...freedom is important to me.
Click to expand...
The way I see it....
all we're trying to do is maintain......
Our freedom to have an RA that we can trust....
Our freedom to not have to worry about who's trying to infiltrate our government...
Our freedom to not have to deal with those who would disrupt our elections.....
Our freedom to not have to put up with abuse on our forums.....
Our freedom to be able to sometimes say no to those who would wage war on us.....
Our freedom to live in the region we have chosen not one that is thrust upon us....

Our freedom.....the freedom of TNP....

Dai....

Is that so unreasonable???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top