BW's ejection of Govindia
- Thread starter Hileville
- Start date
So the issue is that BW ejected and banned Gov's nation from the region for no apparent reason and Gov is whining about it. Which I am not saying he shouldn't be as I would be upset as well. The question is did BW violate any laws or the Bill of Rights.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
The most relevant portion of the bill of rights is clause 8:
The question is, is the WA Delegate himself under the current constitution a governmental authority empowered to authorize ejections and/or bans?
In one perspective the precedent since the adoption of the Monte Ozarka constitution has unequivocally been yes. Delegates have banned recruiters, soldiers of regions at war with us, and truly annoying spammers on their own recognizance.
One could however argue that just because all these acts went unchallenged, it does not mean they were legal.
It is perhaps not a good idea for the Court to change what is effectively settled law however, like the previous Court did eliciting much displeasure.
The Constitution expressly authorizes the Delegate to eject violators of NationStates rules on their own recognizance:
The Constitution also allows ejection and/or banning as a punishment for breaking regional law. The laws which might be relevant are laws 14, 22, and 27. TNP Law 14 prohibits membership in any region at war with TNP. Law 22 prohibits treason; espionage; sedition; election fraud & impersonation; crashing, phishing, and (severe) spamming, and the condoning thereof. Law 27 prohibits proxy usage.
The Delegate has not stated that Govindia violated any of these laws. Instead, the Delegate has pointed to TNP Law 28 which states:
I hope this information is useful to the rest of the Court.
Bill of Rights:
The question is, is the WA Delegate himself under the current constitution a governmental authority empowered to authorize ejections and/or bans?
In one perspective the precedent since the adoption of the Monte Ozarka constitution has unequivocally been yes. Delegates have banned recruiters, soldiers of regions at war with us, and truly annoying spammers on their own recognizance.
One could however argue that just because all these acts went unchallenged, it does not mean they were legal.
It is perhaps not a good idea for the Court to change what is effectively settled law however, like the previous Court did eliciting much displeasure.
The Constitution expressly authorizes the Delegate to eject violators of NationStates rules on their own recognizance:
Constitution Article VI Section 2 Clause 2:
The Constitution also allows ejection and/or banning as a punishment for breaking regional law. The laws which might be relevant are laws 14, 22, and 27. TNP Law 14 prohibits membership in any region at war with TNP. Law 22 prohibits treason; espionage; sedition; election fraud & impersonation; crashing, phishing, and (severe) spamming, and the condoning thereof. Law 27 prohibits proxy usage.
The Delegate has not stated that Govindia violated any of these laws. Instead, the Delegate has pointed to TNP Law 28 which states:
TNP Law 28:
I hope this information is useful to the rest of the Court.
Okay so now that I have time here is my explanation and thoughts on this matter. So I feel the Bill of Rights is pretty clear when it says
This clearly states No Nation. This means any nation residing in the North Pacific not just citizens that are on this forum. Also since Blue Wolf has not stated that Gov broken any laws with the exception of TNP Law 28 which BW has no discretion over. I see this as an illegal act by the Delegate. I believe that we need a clear explanation on what this part of the Bill of Rights means as I would be one that argues all other ejections and bans were illegal under TNP Law.
This clearly states No Nation. This means any nation residing in the North Pacific not just citizens that are on this forum. Also since Blue Wolf has not stated that Gov broken any laws with the exception of TNP Law 28 which BW has no discretion over. I see this as an illegal act by the Delegate. I believe that we need a clear explanation on what this part of the Bill of Rights means as I would be one that argues all other ejections and bans were illegal under TNP Law.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
We cannot issue a ruling without this question being heard by a third judicial officer.
I would not support a ruling which overturns the precedent from this Court on Residency and Forum Administration, in which the Court ruled that recruiters for instance are not residents.
I would support a ruling which recognizes that there was no authority, express or otherwise, for Blue Wolf II to eject Govindia.
I would not support a ruling which overturns the precedent from this Court on Residency and Forum Administration, in which the Court ruled that recruiters for instance are not residents.
I would support a ruling which recognizes that there was no authority, express or otherwise, for Blue Wolf II to eject Govindia.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I would prefer not to overturn existing precedent the way a previous court did.
FALCONKATS
TNPer
I Would not support it either
Scandigrad
TNPer
After reviewing the case, and the points made, I concur that the delegate had no authority, express or otherwise, to make the ejection.
Also, I would concur that we should not overturn past precedence.
Also, I would concur that we should not overturn past precedence.
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific
In regards to the request for review made by Grosseschnauzer on Govindia's banning from the region by Blue Wolf II
The Court took into consideration the following:
Bill of Rights:
as well as:
Constitution Article VI Section 2 Clause 2:
as well as:
TNP Law 28:
In addition to the above the Court also took into consideration this Courts previous ruling on Residency and Forum Administration which can be found here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8013538&t=6711704.
After reviewing the above this Court has determined that Blue Wolf II had no authority, express or otherwise, to eject Govindia from the North Pacific and therefore it is ordered by this Court that Govindia's ban be lifted by the current Delegate immediately.
Scandigrad
TNPer
Concur