FD: Defining Treason

If no one has anything new to add, I'll declare this bill dead on January the 3rd. Either that or a vote but I think this debate has well run its course.
 
Mr Speaker, I'm a little bit confused.

A few days ago, you stated that you would waint until at least the 28th to re-start the full week of formal debate required by the Constitution before a second vote.

Since the first vote, some information has come forward in this debate that wasn't before the RA at the time that first vote took place. I'm also waiting for Chief Justice Byardkuria to render a opinion on the judicial review request.

Once I have that information, and whatever comments come in from RA members who have been away then I can take an informed position about any further changes,

And you don't have the power in this instance to declare the bill dead, the Constitution clearly directs a second vote be held.
 
Voter blocs are not a problem unless they are putting the interests of another region ahead of TNP's, especially when said region is/has been an enemy of TNP. I highly doubt that I will agree with Flem on everything during my time in the RA, but I'm not going to be going around with an alterior agenda from the ADN or other regions. Given that the ADN has no reason to want to disrupt TNP in any way, you should be able to trust that statement. It is harder to trust such a statement from someone whose region would have reason to want to subvert TNP's legislations and disrupt the inner workings of our government.
 
Nucleo:
Voter blocs are not a problem unless they are putting the interests of another region ahead of TNP's, especially when said region is/has been an enemy of TNP. I highly doubt that I will agree with Flem on everything during my time in the RA, but I'm not going to be going around with an alterior agenda from the ADN or other regions. Given that the ADN has no reason to want to disrupt TNP in any way, you should be able to trust that statement. It is harder to trust such a statement from someone whose region would have reason to want to subvert TNP's legislations and disrupt the inner workings of our government.
Click to expand...
Its all about perception!! Some in the region may not agree that the ADN voter bloc is good for the region at all!! The point I'm making is, its a bit rich to cry about voter blocs that disagree with you while having no problem with ones that agree with you!! All the fluff you are going on about does not deviate from that point, you are merely attempting to justify it!!

I was asked to point out the voter bloc I referred to and did so!! I was asked to show where Flemingovia said he was "happy" that the ADN voter bloc was in TNP!! I corrected the misrepresentation of what I said and you, with your own words, went on to prove my point by saying voter blocs that agree with the establishment are fine but ones that disagree are not!!

I couldn't care less if you disagreed with Flemingovia from time to time, the voter bloc I referred to exists, you have admitted that!! So my point is made!!
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Mr Speaker, I'm a little bit confused.

A few days ago, you stated that you would waint until at least the 28th to re-start the full week of formal debate required by the Constitution before a second vote.

Since the first vote, some information has come forward in this debate that wasn't before the RA at the time that first vote took place. I'm also waiting for Chief Justice Byardkuria to render a opinion on the judicial review request.

Once I have that information, and whatever comments come in from RA members who have been away then I can take an informed position about any further changes,

And you don't have the power in this instance to declare the bill dead, the Constitution clearly directs a second vote be held.
Click to expand...
Declaring the bill dead was in response to this:

I am however, satisfied, that the RA has previously adopted language that essentially defines waging war (in TN P Law 14), so I'm not inclined at the moment to add another definition of the same concept.
Click to expand...

As for waiting until Jan 3rd, that was for you wanting to:

give RA members another day or so to informal chime in.
Click to expand...

Thus declaring the bill dead was if no one chimed in and you thought it was done.

(We gotta stop meeting like this Grosse.)
 
I have determined that an addition to this proposed law might be beneficial in order to assure its interpretation and application will be consistent with the oath given as part of the application for Regional Assembly membership in Article II, Section 2, Clause 4 of the Constitution, and with TNP Law 14.


Proposed law on defining the crime of "treason":
Bill Section 1. A new Law entitled “Criminal Offenses” is enacted as part of the Legal Code, as follows:

TNP Law ____
Criminal Offenses

Section 1. Treason.
A. “Treason” defined. For the purposes of this Law, or elsewhere in the Legal Code or in the Constitution, “treason” is defined as the actions of the player controlling a nation nominally located within The North Pacific that directly wages war against The North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific. The actions of a player pursuant to the lawful orders of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency are excepted from this definition. As used in this Section, the word "player" has the same meaning that word has in TNP Law 14, and the phrase "a nation...that directly wages war against The North Pacific" shall have the same meaning as the phrase "region at war" is given in TNP Law 14. Further, the phrase "directly wages war against the North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against the North Pacific" shall have the same meaning as that phrase may be given as it is used in Clause 4 of Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution.


B. Criminal offense; maximum penalty. Treason is declared to be a criminal offense. The maximum punishment that may be imposed on a party found guilty of treason may include:
(1) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from The North Pacific;
(2) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from membership in the Regional Assembly;
(3) the permanent ejection of the convicted party from The North Pacific Army; and
(4) the permanent disqualification and removal of the convicted party from any office or position within the government of The North Pacific.
The penalty shall apply to all nations that the convicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.
Click to expand...

Bill Section 2. Amendment to Statute of Limitations. TNP Law 13 is amended to add a new Section 8 concerning exceptions to the Statute of Limitations, as follows;
Section 8. Exception to Statute of Limitation. This Law does not apply to criminal proceedings founded upon the crime of treason, as defined by TNP Law ___, committed on or after the date that Law is enacted. As to such criminal offenses, there is no limitations period.
Click to expand...

Bill Section 3. These provisions take effect upon their adoption as a Law.
Click to expand...

I believe that this should sufficiently clarify the proposed language in a way that will assure consistency in its application with the existing legal principles in TNP.
 
Law 14 was overwhemling adopted with only 2 no votes. By adapting the synonymous definition concerning the concept "at war" we assure that this will be interpreted and applied consistently with Law 14. This has the effect, ZS, that you and others wanted to narrow the meaning of "directly waging war."

At the same time the way the addition is worded, it also assure that the language from the oath will be interpreted and applied in a consistent manner with this bill.
 
Hmm....

*Zemnaya Svoboda runs off to look at Law 14 again.

Edit: here it is, courtesy of Zemnaya Svoboda running around :w00t:

TNP LAW 14
Wartime Provisions

Section 1: Wartime Provisions

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.

Editorial Note: TNP Law 14 was adopted by the Regional Assembly 1 August -11 August 2006.
Click to expand...

Looking at this definition, there is this actual definition of what a region at war is:
  • If it has made a formal declaration or made an act of war. The Security Council gets to decide what an Act of War is.
  • Some conflict with the North Pacific Army doesn't count. (Blue Wolf is safe :bunny: )
  • War exists until a peace treaty or surrender terms exist or are recognized.
My only question is, who is the recognizer in that last bit?

Generally though that definition seems to make sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top