Defining "residency"

Haor Chall

Haor Chall

The Power of the Dark Side
TNP Nation
Haor Chall
So, going by the latest judicial trainwreck (in progress), the current precedent for residency is being applied too stringently. Since leaving this to the Court to resolve clearly isn't a reliable solution, I believe the RA must take action to sort this and prevent further abuses of the system.

This probably means a Consitutional amendment, rather than an addition to the Legal Code. I would, myself, be happy with an amendment that restricted resident status to those registered on the forum - this would prevent the misuse or abuse of the system which will otherwise always be possible. As the vast masses outside the forum community and in the larger region are and will always remain largely unaffected by any decisions made here, I don't really think it deprives them of anything in a practical sense. However, I am quite sure that many here will disagree.

As such we need a definition of residency which protects the majority, whilst not giving undue rights to ad-spammers, trolls or those from outside the region who pop in to post taunts on the RMB, etc. Thoughts?
 
Also, to help the discussion, this is the historical precedent from the Court (which would work fine if applied sensibly, but apparently it isn't):


First, what is the scope of the protection of The Bill of Rights for those Nations not resident in The North Pacific?

Second, in constitutional terms, what is the scope of authority for the administrators of the official regional forum?

The Bill of Rights, by its terms, protects those who are "resident" in The North Pacific. Not every nation present within TNP at Nationstates is a "resident," and not every "resident" is always within TNP.

Who is a "resident" in terms of TNP law? Primarily those Nations who choose to be here and be a part of the regional society; who conduct their in-game activity as a part of TNP, and who identify with TNP as their home region.

A Nation that is born (or created) in TNP does not automatically have residency. Residency requires both presence and some act consistent with that Nation’s intent to remain and become part of TNP (as opposed to any other region). Thus, acts such as voting or making a proposal in the World Assembly, making or seeking "endorsements" in-game with other Nations within TNP, or modifying their National profile at Nationstates.net while that Nation is within TNP are indications of that intent to be a "resident."[*]

A Nation that enters TNP as a representative or agent of some other region at Nationstates does not become a "resident", because they lack that intention that is necessary for residency. Likewise, a Nation that departs TNP at Nationstates.net with the intention to return and resume residency and is acting for or at the request of TNP authorities retains their residency here, as that Nation has not abandoned its residency.

Absent some legislative action that leads to a broader view of residency, then, a Nation which has not been a "resident" of TNP is not protected under our Bill of Rights until and unless they become a "resident" here.
Click to expand...
 
Actually, I think that definition posted above is quite clear. After reading over it, I have no immediate questions. However, when I have more time, I will try to review it and see if some parts could be worded clearer.
 
Enif:
Actually, I think that definition posted above is quite clear. After reading over it, I have no immediate questions. However, when I have more time, I will try to review it and see if some parts could be worded clearer.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with that definition either, except the current Court has just overruled/in the process of overruling the established precedent (see here and here).


Elu - when someone can come here and contests their ejection as a Bill of Rights violation (whilst simultaniously claiming they are a non-resident and thus cannot be tried for treason), there is a problem. There is even more of a problem when the Court finds in their favour. So, yeah, I think our system is being abused (caused by mistaken actions of the Executive and Judiciary admittedly).

If I will still CJ, then in my view, Mall would be a non-resident (in line with the reasoning of the existing precedent) and thus the banjection would be legal (though there would also be no standing for a treason trial - thank God). Instead, we have the opposite decision reached by the Court, which apparently considers nations from other regions - coming into TNP purely for the purposes of grandstanding - as residents of TNP with all the legal ramifications that follow.
 
The decision to consider Mall a resident (to be on the safe side) was mine.

I'll note that the Court's decision on the constitutionality of C3.10-12 is independent of any decision it may yet make on Mall's residency. It has not yet declared whether Mall is a resident or not. What it has said about C3.10-12 applies regardless, and it's probably a good thing that we've found out the Court reads the Constitution's Article Six that way. Indeed it helps add urgency to the reform proposal, which has no such article and instead relies on the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of TNP nations (as it so thoroughly does).

To be honest I have an ulterior motive: I want to throw cases at our Judicial system until we can get it to work reasonably, as I see no other way to get there except by reforming it and testing those reforms until it works.

In this context I'm hesitant to simply ban a nation even if I can get away with it if I could instead put the situation to work.

This particular operation is a success in that regard: we have found a constitutional pothole impacting the recent legal reform of the judicial process, which can be repaired.

If and when the Court rules on residency we can make further considerations. Personally I'm very cautious about declaring nations non-residents, as declaring a resident non-resident would be an egregious violation of their rights.
 
In delineating between resident and citizen, we would have to be careful that the residents (i.e.: non citizens) do not outnumber the citizens.

We could just define citizen as 'all nations that have resided in the region for X amount of time continuously, and who meet the requirements under the law to apply to the RA.'

There would also have to be a clause involving those nations being excluded from citizenship as being those nations who arrived in the region for illegal purposes. In which case, those nations here for illegal purposes who are not citizens/residents should be treated as 'foreign entities' and subject to military action (which would in this case include ejection/banning).
 
There is no difference between residents and citizens.

The question is, who is a resident and who is transient.
 
Haor Chall's quote from the opinion on residency left out a very important footnote:

[*] To be clear, this phrasing is intended to exclude the out-of-region solicitors posting on the RMB at Nationstates.net from being defined as a resident, as well as those who come to the regional forums and join as representatives of any other region.
Click to expand...

I don't think we need to amend the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but if necessary we can enact the quoted passage in Hair Chall's post above as part of the Legal Code.

This is yet another example of the extreme literalism that has struck recent Courts.

And if we're repealing the current Article VI, we're going to need a replacement procedure in the Legal Code, or we're going to have to look at a revised article in the Gulliver draft proposal.

It is sad that common sense yet again is taking a judicial beating.
 
What is wrong with adopting the simple but elegant definition contained in the flemingovianconstitution?

Citizens of TNP (defined as any nation that resides in TNP and/or maintains an account on the forum) have the following inalienable rights:
Click to expand...
 
The Court has not ruled on residency in this particular case. It angers me when people assume what the Court is going to do. The only ruling that has been delivered was on the Constitutionality of pat of the legal code.
 
Worryingly, I think me and Gross agree (more or less) on something... :P

Apologies, I did know about the footnote, but forgot to include it. It just strengthens the point I'm trying to make. Incidentally I'm not particularly upset about the bit of the Legal Code ruled unconstitutional, there is no reason for why the Delegate should eject someone (who is a resident nation) before a trial has started unless there is a security risk - and there is already a provision for that.


Flem - in the context of your constitution, it doesn't really matter, but that sentence of yours would presumably mean that an adspammer who left their nation in TNP would be defined as a citizen/resident. One of the other problems with our laws - when we're not being ultra-literalist - is our habit of ignoring them when inconvient (the other when your face fits thing...), but if we don't apply them with consistancy then what is the point in having them in the first place?


Hileville:
The Court has not ruled on residency in this particular case. It angers me when people assume what the Court is going to do. The only ruling that has been delivered was on the Constitutionality of pat of the legal code.
Click to expand...

Well it worries me when the Court apparently doesn't realise what its rulings mean. Your ruling on the Constitutionality of the Legal Code section raised is correct and I agree with that. However, for the Bill of Rights to apply in this case the nation must be a resident (see above precedent), so by ordering the Delegate to unban the nation because of the provisions of the Bill of Rights you are inherently declaring them to be a resident nation.

So... you have already decided the residency question, so no assumption necessary.


Edit: Just to clarify, if you rule that the nation in question is a resident in the next ruling then you've severely amended the above precedent about who counts as a resident. That would seem logically consistent with your last ruling and this is what I am assuming will happen. However, if you somehow rule they are not a resident, than the two rulings combined effectively completely void the existing precedent completely - as that will mean the Bill of Rights applies to everyone (residents and non-residents alike) but the government can only charge resident nations with criminal acts. Which really would be the worst outcome possible. Either way, IMO, the RA needs to enact something into law to restablish the old precedent and prevent either of these two outcomes becoming the established approach in law.
 
It wasn't a bill of rights provision that caused their ruling. It was the Constitution's Article Six, and its rules on ejections in general.
 
Haor Chall:
Well it worries me when the Court apparently doesn't realise what its rulings mean. Your ruling on the Constitutionality of the Legal Code section raised is correct and I agree with that. However, for the Bill of Rights to apply in this case the nation must be a resident (see above precedent), so by ordering the Delegate to unban the nation because of the provisions of the Bill of Rights you are inherently declaring them to be a resident nation.

So... you have already decided the residency question, so no assumption necessary.


Edit: Just to clarify, if you rule that the nation in question is a resident in the next ruling then you've severely amended the above precedent about who counts as a resident. That would seem logically consistent with your last ruling and this is what I am assuming will happen. However, if you somehow rule they are not a resident, than the two rulings combined effectively completely void the existing precedent completely - as that will mean the Bill of Rights applies to everyone (residents and non-residents alike) but the government can only charge resident nations with criminal acts. Which really would be the worst outcome possible. Either way, IMO, the RA needs to enact something into law to restablish the old precedent and prevent either of these two outcomes becoming the established approach in law.
Click to expand...
Again you are incorrect. The Court knows exactly what its Rulings mean and if you think otherwise you are extremely mistaken. The reversal of the ejection was based solely on the Constitutionality of the Legal Code and not on whether Mall is a resident or not.

Now I know why TNP can't keep Justices. They begin to hate the job as everything that is done is mocked and misconstrued.
 
Hileville:
Now I know why TNP can't keep Justices. They begin to hate the job as everything that is done is mocked and misconstrued.
Click to expand...
Oh please, you haven't been mocked and heaven forbid that somebody question and/or disagree with the actions of an elected official. Yeah, that's totally unfair. :eyeroll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top