FD: Amendment to Law 22

Felasia

Felasia

TNPer
Link to preliminary discussion.


A bill to amend Law 22 on enumeration of prohibited acts

I.
A new Section 6 of Law 22 is enacted as follows:
Section 6. Enforcement of Oaths

A. A failure to act in conformity with the sworn affirmations contained in (1) the oath of office, as prescribed in Law 1 for all government officials, elected or appointed, or (2) the oath required of all applicants for membership in the Regional Assembly, as prescribed in Law 28, or (3) any other oath prescribed elsewhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Legal Code, are prohibited acts.
B. The Regional Assembly hereby declares that the illegal status of acts that are deemed by judicial decision to be a failure to act in conformity with the sworn affirmations of the oaths described in paragraph A of this Section are not affected by the enactment of this Section.
Click to expand...

II.
The language currently contained in paragraph B3 of Section 5 of Law 22 is transferred and redesignated as paragraph A of a new Section 7 of Law 22, as follows:

Section 7. Penalties
A. Punishment for the commission of these prohibited acts may include any penalty deemed appropriate by law, including ejection or banning by the Delegate, or restrictions or banning by official forum administration, or both.
Click to expand...

III.
A new paragraph B of new Section 7 of Law 22 is hereby enacted as follows:

B. If any other act is declared a prohibited or criminal act in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Legal Code in addition to this Law, punishment for the commission of such prohibited acts may include any penalty deemed appropriate by law, including ejection or banning by the Delegate, or restrictions or banning by official forum administration, or both.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This law is not retroactive, correct? So JAL, for example, can't be tried on the basis of this law (unless he breaks this law in the future)?
 
As I noted in the preliminary discussion, the practice in TNP is that violation of an oath was itself a sufficient basis for a criminal proceeding. In that sense, retroactivity is not really an issue since nothing is being substantively changed.

As to JAL's situation, hypothetically, the posting of an invalid oath is in and of itself could be considered a violation of Law 28, since the exact language of the oath to be posted is specified. There's also the question where a corrected oath was given in good faith. The issue of correcting it later probably would go to punishment rather than whether the law was violated.

(And none of this affects the question of the permanent forum ban which is based on violation of the server host's TOS, and the subsequent attempts to circumvent the original forum ban, which resulted in the permanent ban.)
 
Alrighty, at this time I'm echoing AMOM and Topid, after re-reading this law and our current body of law, I think we need a restructuring of our current body of law for the sake of readability -- this law seems to contribute to its discombobulation.
 
As I noted in the preliminary discussion, the practice in TNP is that violation of an oath was itself a sufficient basis for a criminal proceeding. In that sense, retroactivity is not really an issue since nothing is being substantively changed.
Click to expand...

It is on the basis of "nothing being substantively changed" that I am inclined to abstain from this vote, although I won't obstruct its passage. While I respect and appreciate the sentiment of protecting the proud historical traditions of TNP by putting into writing what was formerly practice, I'm not sure that it is a priority for my nation.

I am also inclined to agree with Unibot et al. that reform is probably needed with respect to the smooth operation of TNP in the present day, past traditions and practices notwithstanding.
 
The problems we've had under the current Constitution was due to a ill-placed desire for excessive simplification which required literally years of effort to overcome.

I'm not going to be persuaded that there's any benefit to employ a reset just to go through that crap for a second set of years. There really isn't much left to simplify if the TNP community is going to remain a democracy. And I will not go down that path. Many of us have fought too long and too hard to protect the heritage of this region and its commitment to democratic values and traditions to throw it away; I don't believe there's much more simplification that is even possible unless we want TNP to turn into something none of us would recognize or be happy with.
 
Not to be rude, but... do we share the same definition of 'simplification'? I'm asking for clarity of law, sometimes an over-reliance on explication is not clear. I am not pouring more water into your Spiced Rum, I'm suggesting the Rum would taste better if we removed some spices and harmonized the remaining spices better. Democracy and clearly readable law go hand in hand. Generally, if the people do not understand their own body of law, it allows law to be ignored or easily circumvented at the will of those in power and it also allows said laws to be misapplied or misconstrued against those not in power. Anyone with some experience across NationStates has seen how a quasi-tyrant can use a overly complex body of laws as their own weapon when they need it to be and also ignore it when they want. A set of laws that we can all understand and read clearly, is inherently *democratic*. I'm not asking, nor are most of my colleagues, for a complete restart but simply an extensive overhaul of the wording and organization (not what it accomplishes) in our body of law for the sake of readability.

Once such a session of revisions is made, a neat and organized index for our new members could be of great import.

This however --I believe-- is deviating from the topic at hand, so my apologies.
 
Where were you a couple of years ago when a number of us who were active in the R.A. at the time went through and adopted legislation to clear up and correct errors in the Constitution and Legal Code.

Because those bills dealt with various topics, they weren't adopted all at once in one bill but as several that were dealt with in sequence; and it allowed everyone to make sure we weren't making things worse.

And most of the bills in the last year have involved fixing oversights that led to paralysis and that needed to help make sure the trains run on time. There are still a couple of those kind of proposals that are needed, but I've been willing to take them one at a time.

There will come a time where some language added now will seem duplication and can be combined, but when dealing with laws as currently written and unwritten practices, clarity about the changes are more important than brevity for the sake of brevity or oversimplification.
 
I'm sorry, oversimplification? The current TNP Laws are so fucked up that in the coming elections the only people who will be allowed to run are those already in office and, as a result, most of the positions will be ran against either uncontested or with no candidate running at all. That doesn't seem "oversimplified" to me but rather a catastrophic dick up.

I think you need to tread very carefully in your wording, Grosse.
 
While I agree that the current law of TNP are oversimplify, I wouldn't said that it's directly lead to the fact that so little of current RA member are eligible for election as 30 days clause are pretty simple and easy to understand.

I think it's two separate issues that should both be address.
 
We've made the laws horribly complex by adding *posting* to the mix rather than actual *activity*. As a result the upcoming elections are almost guaranteed to be the laughingstock of the entire Feeder. We are virtually ensured to have more seats open than we have viable candidates to run for them. As a whole the laws are completely nonfunctional and that is not due to "oversimplification" but rather miles of red tape.

In specific regards to the Amendment to Law 22, I've already pointed out that this looks like a law specifically aimed at keeping, and with no other purpose than to keep, JAL out of the Regional Assembly, which is rather petty and underhanded.
 
Oh, damn. I was going to said it is overcomplicated... not oversimplify, my bad >_<

Anyway, I would said that activity on the forum is a crucial part in being active member of RA and it is the most simple way we have come up with. I would be interest though if you have any other ways to weed out inactive or uninterested RA member.

Also I wouldn't go as far as saying that this election would be a laughingstock of the entire Feeder as we at least still have election. :P I agree though that we should look into getting rid of some position that is not needed and to simplify our government system.
 
Well if we don't have a RA, we don't have a Government, and we're slowly creeping towards not having either so the problem clearly needs to be rectified by loosening, not restricting, membership requirements.
 
Blue Wolf, we have exactly three offices up for election in September.

When we have judicial elections, we will have four.

That's it.

One concern you should have was the recent reduction in the activity requirement for RA members being reduced from 30 days to 15; I think that one creates more problems than it solved, and I would support an amendment to reverse that specific change in the R.A. Law.
 
As for the 15 days rule, I voted "FOR" that rule, and I may be regretting it.

Although I poke around the forum here and there, I do not make a post all that often, therefore risking my RA Membership status.

A reversal of that may be something I would get behind.

As for the Government being complicated, go check all the different government positions out by going to the following link: http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/members/L And then, scroll to the bottom and open the drop-down menu that shows which groups you'd like to display. Not only does it seem a bit much, but for some reason there is two "Regional Assembly" groups, one which has an asterisk after its name.
 
I think perhaps the limit should fluctuate between 15-30 depending on if its the summer lull or the winter lull or not.
 
There's a period of time where 15 is reasonable and 30 is too long and another when 30 is reasonable and 15 is too brief, however logically if we're not going to accommodate both, the longer one, thirty days is the fairer choice.
 
Enif, the member groups are designed to reflect various needs and permissions and are not a good guide to what offices are currently used. Among other things groups related to government have to be set for mod powers only where its within that official's area of responsibility.

For example. the Cabinet mask only gets used when a Delegate appoints a Cabinet. We sometimes have ambassadors and sometimes not, but again, those are at the Delegate's discretion.

TNP citizens are residents who choose not to be active in the R.A., and is its own separate mask.

And several of the groups relate to forum administration, and as a general practice, we've never remasked an admin or a global mod when they hold an office as they have permissions for everything to begin with. Those also include the general "member" group that everyone starts in and the "banned" group.

As to the two member groups with an asterisk, that's because we have a forum member who insist on being able to use a custom badge at all times; the special group(s) have been the only way to accommodate her requests.

Since there seem to be support for reversing the change on the R.A. inactivity period, I'll draft something for preliminary discussion separate from this topic.

As to this bill currently in formal discussion, I think we're ready for it to go to a vote, and I ask for a vote on the bill.
 
I don't feel it is right to vote on this when election is just days away from starting so I will leave this to the next Speaker to decide.
 
I don't see why we can't start the proceedings and let whomever is Speaker thereafter close the vote. It seems like it might be a good idea to have this legislation in place by the time elections are done.
 
Well, the person whose application to the RA is currently stalled because of the general election won't get to have a said in the matter. Also this is not really an urgent matter per said so it should probably be able to wait until after the election.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
As I noted in the preliminary discussion, the practice in TNP is that violation of an oath was itself a sufficient basis for a criminal proceeding. In that sense, retroactivity is not really an issue since nothing is being substantively changed.
Click to expand...
Since I have spent quite a lot of time lately combing through the legal and constitutional stacks, I have refined my opinion on this proposal.

The Bill of Rights States, in Item #6:

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

Therefore, the idea that we can quickly pass this change because it has always been TNP "practice" is false. My basic interpretation of this is that unwritten practices and traditions are insufficient, legally - only the letter of the law holds legal sway in the TNP.

So this isn't a question of simply codifying a current legal practice. In fact, it is more like codifying a practice which had previously violated the Bill of Rights. Which is okay - there is certainly nothing wrong with bringing your current practice into compliance.

But of course, this changes the nature of the "retroactivity" issue. Since this, both technically and practically, creates a new law, Clause #8 certainly comes into play:

9. .... 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.
Click to expand...

So, while I'm still willing to let this bill pass (if not enthusiastically), it is ONLY with the understanding that it cannot be applied retroactively. I will oppose changes to the legal system motivated by the desire to prosecute individuals selectively, and retroactively - it is bad legal practice.

Therefore, I would like to formally request that this Amendment be tabled until we can get a formal legal opinion from the Court of the North Pacific as to whether the Amendment to Law 22 would be considered a new law, subject to the retroactivity requirements of Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights, or merely a recognition of a previously existing "unwritten" law, with no specific implementation date and therefore no ability to protect citizens from retroactive prosecution.
 
And I'll again state that prosecutions and actions in the past have been based on the actual posted oaths under Law 1 or Law 28 (and Law 28's predecessors going back to the earliest days of constitutional government in TNP.)

The adoption of this amendment, in substantive terms changes nothing other than adding an explicit clause in a law concerning enforcement of either oath. Without the amendment, charges could still be based on the direct violation of Law 1 or Law 28.

Retroactive application doesn't even come into play. If there had not been the ability to use Law 1 or Law 28 as a basis for prosecution for violating an oath in the past, then the restriction on retroactivity would be applicable. But that is not the current situation; this proposal does in fact codify current practice dating back to the earliest days of constitutional government in TNP, and I believe I've correctly stated the matter.
 
Does it not make sense the law requiring someone to take an oath by nature requires that person to follow the oath? To me, that seems like a very obvious assumption, and that the oath would be legally binding with or without this amendment.

[/opinion as an RA member]
 
And I'll again state that prosecutions and actions in the past have been based on the actual posted oaths under Law 1 or Law 28 (and Law 28's predecessors going back to the earliest days of constitutional government in TNP.)

The adoption of this amendment, in substantive terms changes nothing other than adding an explicit clause in a law concerning enforcement of either oath. Without the amendment, charges could still be based on the direct violation of Law 1 or Law 28.
Click to expand...

So you claim. But that is merely your interpretation - it isn't written explicitly. Because if it were, you wouldn't be bothering with this amendment at all, would you? The whole point of this exercise was to codify a practice that wasn't written explicitly. You can't have it both ways.

And, the Bill of Rights CLEARLY states in Clause 6 that if it isn't prescribed in the Legal Code or Constitution, it isn't law, whatever you've done "traditionally". Period.

Ergo - this Amendment constitutes new law. Ergo, no retroactive prosecution.

Admittedly, that's my interpretation. Since neither one of us is empowered by the Constitution to make legal judgements, I want it referred to someone that is before I will support it. That seems like the most logical course of action.

If, as you claim, this is just about cleaning up the legal system - and not about using this as another tool to go after JAL, it doesn't really matter, does it?

But the fact that you are so insistent that this SHOULD be able to be applied retroactively tells me that you have something or someone specific in mind, which is a piss-poor way to make law, no matter how repugnant the offender is.

If I'm wrong, put it in writing that we aren't going to use this pursue criminal charges occurring prior to date the amendment passes, and we can get this done quick.
 
This can't be applied retroactively. JAL should be removed from this region, but for reasons far more condemnation-worthy than these. As Peterstan said, I'd support this as an expansion of the legal code for future reference, but not simply as a way of attacking JAL. JAL committed treason, usurped the position of delegate, and purged thousands of nations from the region - I'm sure the Court can come up with reasons far less petty than these to bar him access to the government.
 
The Attorney General decides whether JAL is prosecuted on a criminal charge or not, and the Court will decide that case.

I've already made clear that this clause doesn't involve past actions, and that current law already in place (Law 1 and 28) could be used by the AG as grounds for prosecution. Since there's already a provision in place about retroactivity in written form (in the Bill of Rights) that doesn't need to be added to this bill. There's no point to it.

It doesn't change anything I said. And while it's buried in the files of the regional archives, you can go look and see that violation of oath of office has been used in our past as a ground for prosecution in the Court. So I would suggest there is historical support for my prior comments.

I am confused as to how you would see this as having anything to do with JAL; I've never suggested that this change would have any effect on the JAL matter, I don't see any basis for you to suggest that it does, and I see no reason to change the bill for something that constitutionally cannot happen.

Quit mixing apples and oranges. Or oil and water. Or fire and ice.
 
The reason this has been associated with JAL is the implied connection to JAL's very recent mockery of the oath of office and the overall insistence on his being incriminated for this offense. If people really are already found guilty of committing this offense in a Court even without your clarification here, I don't see much reason for proposing these changes.

While I think they are necessary for the complete explanation of this law, I'm a bit confused as to why they're being proposed now. Also, I'm now considering the new question of whether they actually serve a purpose, since you said the Court has considered what is written in your addition on various occasions in the past without it actually being set in stone in the legal code.
 
It's for the sake of a newbie reading our laws for the first time, who might not realize this is how it has been interpreted without looking back into voluminous legal precedent.
 
I proposed it because it was clear to me that confusion about these matters was becoming evident becuase they were not written. If it is written them it's there to see seen and doesn't rely on memory or the experience of those who have moved on or out of the game altogether. We're all not going to be here forever, including me.
 
I'm not sure I like this part:

B. If any other act is declared a prohibited or criminal act in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Legal Code in addition to this Law, punishment for the commission of such prohibited acts may include any penalty deemed appropriate by law, including ejection or banning by the Delegate, or restrictions or banning by official forum administration, or both.
Click to expand...
 
This proposal is a complete mess. It seems to consist of nothing but clauses that say say the laws that are already in place should be followed, which is already perfectly implicit in the whole them being laws thing. Of course oaths have legal binding force. Of course the punishments defined legally by law are legal and can be applied as defined by law. That's already been stated in those laws, repeating it like this accomplishes nothing other than adding even more verbiage to an already bloated and unusable legal code. And the wording. It's so incredibly and unnecessarily obtuse and nearly impossible to parse with its needlessly long expressions and tortured grammatical constructions. It's because of laws written like this that we have a court that can't even understand its own procedures. We need to be getting rid of these sorts of things, not adding more.
 
I would also like to point out that this proposal does not explicitly state that people can't be banned without trial.....
 
Pragmia, this bill is an amendment to existing law, adding and reorganizing provisions that needed to be cleared up. It also has to reflect the current state of the statutory law, hence the need to have similar looking but distinct provisions.

These amendment would put all of the statutory provisions defining crimes and punishment in the same Law, which I think is beneficial. While in theory I agree that a violation of Law 1 and Law 28 on their own are sufficient ground for a criminal proceeding, there are those who believe otherwise. One of the changes brought forward in this bill is to eliminate any doubt about either oath provision currently in place, and extend enforcement to any other oaths that may become part of our law in the future.

The current punishment provision in this Law deals with only one of the offenses listed. Some could argue it would not apply to any other crime, and as a result, no punishment exists for such crimes. Having a general provision stating the maximum punishment a court can impose and includes any lesser form or level of punishment simply reflects what the drafters of the current and prior Constitutions intended. A court can order forum administration to impose a ban in the forums, this provision does not give forum administration that power for violations of TNP law. (Forum admin already have that power for violation of ToU and ToS, as explained in the Court's opinion that defined the scope of authority for forum administration and the government.

It is dangerous to assume that future residents and leaders of TNP will read our laws the same way. This amendment, therefore, cleans up Law 27, and includes things that have been seen as understood now, but which might not otherwise be seen as understood in the future, but stating them explicitly and reducing the risk of confusion in the future.
 
I proposed it because it was clear to me that confusion about these matters was becoming evident becuase they were not written.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is, if they weren't written, they weren't law then, and they aren't law now. I don't give a flying fudoo about your traditions, or who might have been prosecuted criminally at some earlier point in time for a law that didn't really exist.

But it just so happens that the consequence for violating an oath of office is clearly written in the legal code already:

TNP Law 1: Section 3: Penalties for Violation
1 - This Oath shall be binding on all government officials as previously covered, and violations of said Oath may be grounds for a motion for recall in accordance with the Constitution of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything there about a criminal proceeding, or being banned or ejected. But the punishment is prescribed.

The punishment is similarly prescribed for RA Members too.

TNP LAW 28
Section One
Violation of the Constitution or Laws of The North Pacific

1. Any Assembly member that has been found by due process to be in violation of the Constitution and Laws of The North Pacific shall be removed with immediate effect by The Speaker.
Click to expand...

Recall and removal from office - that is the beginning and the end of the possible written and prescribed consequences for violating the oath. That is all you get.

On this The Constitution couldn't be clearer:

6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by this Constitution or the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

And since those are the only "manners" prescribed by the constitution, that's all you get.

Law 1 and Law 28 CAN NOT BE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, beyond the consequences prescribed in the code. If this has been done in the past, it was done incorrectly and illegally.

Any attempt to make it so now constitutes new legislation. Period.
 
Pragmia, this bill is an amendment to existing law, adding and reorganizing provisions that needed to be cleared up.
Click to expand...
Yes, it amends an existing law, so what? That doesn't change that it's still more text, poorly written and hard to understand.

The current punishment provision in this Law deals with only one of the offenses listed. Some could argue it would not apply to any other crime, and as a result, no punishment exists for such crimes.
Click to expand...
And this proposal adds no punishments. It just says, and I quote:

A. Punishment for the commission of these prohibited acts may include any penalty deemed appropriate by law, including ejection or banning by the Delegate, or restrictions or banning by official forum administration, or both.
Click to expand...
No new punishments what so ever is defined by that section. It just says that any other sections which define punishments can be used. But if those punishments are defined as being for other crimes, then they would not qualify as considered appropriate under law for the purposes of punishing the crimes in question. This clause serves as nothing other than a redundant description of existing law which is already defined by itself and adds nothing functional at all. Do we seriously have to pepper the law and bloat it's size and complexity with meaningless clauses which say that the law, shockingly enough, is law and therefore legally binding? If you want to make sure a crime has a specific punishment, just say "[crime(s)] may be punished by [penalty]. Simple, direct, no redundancy.

B. If any other act is declared a prohibited or criminal act in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Legal Code in addition to this Law, punishment for the commission of such prohibited acts may include any penalty deemed appropriate by law, including ejection or banning by the Delegate, or restrictions or banning by official forum administration, or both.
Click to expand...
Putting aside the fact that is purposeless for the reasons stated above, why is it an entirely separate section? Why aren't these merged into one clause with a simple phrase like "acts prohibited by Constitution, Bill of Rights or Legal Code"? This law is part of the Legal Code and is covered by any reference to it. You don't have to add an entirely separate clause just for the law itself when it's already been covered in a broader category.

B. The Regional Assembly hereby declares that the illegal status of acts that are deemed by judicial decision to be a failure to act in conformity with the sworn affirmations of the oaths described in paragraph A of this Section are not affected by the enactment of this Section.
Click to expand...
"The Regionally Assembly hereby declares that"? Of course the Regional Assembly hereby declares, it's a law passed by the body, you've just added 6 extra words that add no legal content and just increase the law's length! [F]ailure to act in conformity with the sworn affirmations of oaths described in paragraph A of this Section"? What's wrong with just "breaking" or something similar? Why does it have to be expanded into a cumbersome 6 word phrase?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top