Request for a Ruling

Mahaj

Mahaj

TNPer
The Council of 5 has now adopted a policy requiring nations to either have their WA nation permanently in TNP or be a part of the regional army.

I believe that this policy is illegal, having violated the following:

3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the World Assembly shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.
Click to expand...

as well as
9. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

and

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Click to expand...

I believe that this policy first off, by requiring nations to either be in the WA or in the NPA, makes participation in the World Assembly a condition required to vote, as being in the NPA also requires a WA nation which is used for TNP.

Additionally, this new policy divides the citizenry into two groups, those of WA nations and non WA nations. This, I believe, violates both Section 9 and Section 10, as nations have now been given unequal and unfair treatment of their right to vote.

I request that the Court give a ruling as to whether this new policy, which requires nations to either have their WA permanently in TNP or to be a part of the NPA (which requires them to do NPA missions), is illegal based on the points above (or possibly other points as well), and if it is illegal, I request that the Court strike down this law.
 
A few clarifications seem needed.

1. No one is being required to do anything. A qualification has been added for voting on WA resolutions. The process of voting on WA resolutions is not established or required by the Constitution or any law.

2. This is not a law, this is an executive policy.

3. An executive policy stricter than this one has been adopted in the past, many times, under the same bill of rights. Citation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 (affirmed by unibot!), 16, 17 (affirmed by unibot!),
18, 19, 20, 21 (not explicitly stated within the thread, but it is following the overall policy post), 22 (not explicitly stated within the thread, but it is following the overall policy post), 23 (overall policy posted here)

I will not bother going through and individually linking votes from 2008 but for your perusal here is an appropriate point in the archives to start from. Throughout 2008 and I believe 2009 this was the policy. It has never been ruled a Bill of Rights violation, or even challenged on those grounds. (The Monte Ozarka constitution and the current separated Bill of Rights were adopted December 2007).

4. A qualification, again, stricter than this one, has been adopted in the past for voting in WA Delegate elections, under the same bill of rights. This procedure was after some discussion ruled illegal because of the wording of the clause in question, but the constitution was amended to require it as shown below:
Constitution of December 2007:
C - All Nations who have joined the Regional Assembly under the provisions of Article II, Section 2, of this Constitution and who reside in The North Pacific, or are active members of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency, shall be entitled to submit a single vote for each general election regardless of UN status. Any such Nation who is both resident in The North Pacific or are active members of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is also a member of the United Nations may vote in elections for UN Delegate and Vice Delegate. No person shall be permitted to cast more than one vote, through one or more Nations.
Click to expand...

It can of course be questioned whether the Bill of Rights could have invalidated any part of the Constitution it was part of, but no Bill of Rights arguments were raised at that time.

The amended procedure was affirmed here and one can see elections which practiced it here and here. This procedure was discontinued with the adoption of the Monte Ozarka Constitution in December 2007 as part of a general simplification of everything.
 
Do executive policies not count as laws? Are they not subject to the same constitutionality rules as laws?

Simply because a policy was not challenged before does not mean that it should not be.
 
The basic argument for why that clause of the Bill of Rights does not apply is that the power of the Delegate to vote on WA resolutions is not governed by the Constitution and is within their remit to govern. The Delegate could vote based on a die roll and it would be legal. Why then should it be illegal for them to vote based on the wishes of those TNP nations affected by GA resolutions?

Secondly, if one is to apply this clause of the Bill of Rights to a process which is not part of regional governance, does it also apply to voting by Telegram? None has ever challenged that only TNP WA member nations should be permitted to vote by telegram -- if one were to permit any TNP nation to vote on WA resolutions by telegram, then it would be trivially easy to rig every such a vote. Should we, to be fair to non-WA nations, end voting by telegram entirely? I submit that this would be an unwarranted restriction against our TNP WA nations. I would like clarification from the court on this point.

Thirdly, I would like clarification from the court as to whether voting based on the on-site WA vote within TNP would violate the Bill of Rights as it would obviously exclude all nations but TNP WA nations from counting.
 
Guys, didn't you discuss this and vote on it at the Co5 meeting? that's the nature of democracy - sometimes you lose votes. But ya can't just run to the court just because things did not go your way in the meeting.
 
I would simply like to remind Eluvatar and the court that popular prejudice often completely flies over the heads of past legislators and justices. It is possible, for example, for a historical government to require all men to be free, then ignore a minorities' servitude for decades.

An executive policy stricter than this one has been adopted in the past, many times, under the same bill of rights. Citation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 (affirmed by unibot!), 16, 17 (affirmed by unibot!),
Click to expand...

Cute, but all you're doing is either proving (1) that law wasn't enforced or even promulgated regularly, (2) I broke the law. I've never had my WA in TNP (at least not long-term as a citizen for any stretch of time).

I think the policy is a clear violation of :

3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the World Assembly shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.
Click to expand...

Because that is what is wrong here: citizens are being denied participation in a category of governmental authorities. Eluvatar will argue that the vote in the WA forum is not "governmental authorities of the region"; I think that's rather silly to insinuate. Eluvatar's official title is the WA Delegate and we have an entire Ministry of World Assembly Affairs and most importantly regular political assemblages to decide how our region should vote in the World Assembly. The regional political level of the World Assembly is very present in the North Pacific and is definitely a governmental authority that one can either be allowed to participate in, or not. Thus, the founders of the region laid out it out very clearly in our Bill of Rights: we as -citizens- of our region should be treated and included equally with all other -citizens- in the vote that ultimately decides our region's stance in the World Assembly.
 
The basic argument for why that clause of the Bill of Rights does not apply is that the power of the Delegate to vote on WA resolutions is not governed by the Constitution and is within their remit to govern. The Delegate could vote based on a die roll and it would be legal. Why then should it be illegal for them to vote based on the wishes of those TNP nations affected by GA resolutions?
Click to expand...

Because the former method for determining how to vote is done by chance, which discriminates against no-one because as Harvey Dent would remind you: chance is fair.

Whereas the latter method is done by a "means" that is banned by the Bill of Rights.

For example, if you were to suppress the freedom of speech for five out of six random people, then let the sixth person decide your WA vote, this would still be a violation of the Bill of Rights because you suppressed the freedom of speech for five people.

Secondly, if one is to apply this clause of the Bill of Rights to a process which is not part of regional governance, does it also apply to voting by Telegram? None has ever challenged that only TNP WA member nations should be permitted to vote by telegram -- if one were to permit any TNP nation to vote on WA resolutions by telegram, then it would be trivially easy to rig every such a vote. Should we, to be fair to non-WA nations, end voting by telegram entirely? I submit that this would be an unwarranted restriction against our TNP WA nations. I would like clarification from the court on this point.
Click to expand...

Your own cabinet ministers were elected by non-WA TNPers and you praised the participation. So I don't see this really as a reasonable compliant by you, probably just a change of heart. Nonetheless, I wouldn't oppose the closure of the tg-service on the basis of greater equality. Since sometimes, equality has to trump convenience of the elite.
 
First, No nation is denied the right to have their WA nation in TNP. They may choose to have it here, there or anywhere.*

Second, If they do not want to be in the WA at all, that is again their choice. They have a right to govern that nation as they see fit.

Third, If a nation is not in the WA, because they choose not to be, then that nation has CHOSEN not to participate in the WA. It is the participation which entitles a nation to vote on WA resolutions.

It would be like me complaining about not being able to have a say in the Progressive Party's nominations. I'm not a member, it was my choice not to be a member, so why would I be entitled to a vote? Am I being discriminated against, even though it was my choice not to join?



*As a footnote, the NPA is always exempted from the requirement because our fine military personnel sacrifice their right to choose where they have their WA nation.
 
Eluvatar:
A few clarifications seem needed.

1. No one is being required to do anything. A qualification has been added for voting on WA resolutions. The process of voting on WA resolutions is not established or required by the Constitution or any law.
Click to expand...
By adding a qualification you are adding a requirement, a requirement that not every citizen of TNP is capable of meeting.

2. This is not a law, this is an executive policy.
Click to expand...
Your executive policy has a direct effect on the citizens of the region, and your ability to make such policies are grounded in the laws and constitution of this region.

3. An executive policy stricter than this one has been adopted in the past, many times, under the same bill of rights. Citation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 (affirmed by unibot!), 16, 17 (affirmed by unibot!),
18, 19, 20, 21 (not explicitly stated within the thread, but it is following the overall policy post), 22 (not explicitly stated within the thread, but it is following the overall policy post), 23 (overall policy posted here)

I will not bother going through and individually linking votes from 2008 but for your perusal here is an appropriate point in the archives to start from. Throughout 2008 and I believe 2009 this was the policy. It has never been ruled a Bill of Rights violation, or even challenged on those grounds. (The Monte Ozarka constitution and the current separated Bill of Rights were adopted December 2007).
Click to expand...
Has it ever been challenged in Court? Apparently not, meaning your assertion that "that's the way it's been done around here!" is irrelevant. Unless you are going to link a Court precedent you are not making a case.

4. A qualification, again, stricter than this one, has been adopted in the past for voting in WA Delegate elections, under the same bill of rights. This procedure was after some discussion ruled illegal because of the wording of the clause in question, but the constitution was amended to require it as shown below:
Constitution of December 2007:
C - All Nations who have joined the Regional Assembly under the provisions of Article II, Section 2, of this Constitution and who reside in The North Pacific, or are active members of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency, shall be entitled to submit a single vote for each general election regardless of UN status. Any such Nation who is both resident in The North Pacific or are active members of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is also a member of the United Nations may vote in elections for UN Delegate and Vice Delegate. No person shall be permitted to cast more than one vote, through one or more Nations.
Click to expand...

It can of course be questioned whether the Bill of Rights could have invalidated any part of the Constitution it was part of, but no Bill of Rights arguments were raised at that time.

The amended procedure was affirmed here and one can see elections which practiced it here and here. This procedure was discontinued with the adoption of the Monte Ozarka Constitution in December 2007 as part of a general simplification of everything.
Click to expand...
Again you're pointing out historical precedents which are not relevant to a discussion of the current Constitution and Bill of Rights.

As a newly admitted member of the RA I must say I am incredibly disappointed in both the Delegate and the Government of The North Pacific. I am a GA regular who has authored two resolutions, yet I am being told that because my TNP nation is not in the WA I must not have a vested interest in the results of WA votes. That is beyond absurd. These restrictions are stifling to my participation in the region, and are discriminatory against those who have WA nations active in other regions for other purposes. The current Constitution and Laws of TNP made it clear to me before I joined the RA that WA membership is not a requirement to be a fully active citizen. I am now being told by the Government of TNP that this is not the case, I am now a second class citizen who has no business influencing the Delegate's vote on WA matters. I ask the Court to consider this as They form Their ruling.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Third, If a nation is not in the WA, because they choose not to be, then that nation has CHOSEN not to participate in the WA. It is the participation which entitles a nation to vote on WA resolutions.
Click to expand...
From a Raider/Defender perspective that is simply untrue. One does not need a WA nation to have an interest in WA decisions or to participate in the WA. Voting is a form of participation which has been stripped from myself and others. See my above statement for further explanation.
 
(The fact that Mall and Unibot are in agreement in scary to me. :P)

I have to agree with them, though.
 
First, No nation is denied the right to have their WA nation in TNP. They may choose to have it here, there or anywhere.*

Second, If they do not want to be in the WA at all, that is again their choice. They have a right to govern that nation as they see fit.

Third, If a nation is not in the WA, because they choose not to be, then that nation has CHOSEN not to participate in the WA. It is the participation which entitles a nation to vote on WA resolutions.
Click to expand...

This all sums up into one neat, regionalist counter-argument: you have a choice whether you will be discriminated against or not.

And thus, it's that c-h-o-i-c-e to be treated as a second-class citizen that makes it all A-okay. :)

I suspect that you believe WA voting is not a governmental authority in the region, so let's just assume for a moment that it is not; and instead let's look at cabinet ministers.

Why is it justified for cabinet ministers to be allowed to be elected even if their WA nation is not in the WA? Well, the Bill of Rights says so, explicitly -- running completely counter to your "you choose to be discriminated against" argument. The founders did not the feel the same way as you when they said: you can't bar people for running as candidates because they're not WA members.

The inclusive region depicted in our Bill of Rights doesn't use discrimination as the unpleasantries (or threat) offered in a systematic ultimatum. It rises above that pettiness and requests that citizens be treated as equals. I want to defend that request.

It would be like me complaining about not being able to have a say in the Progressive Party's nominations. I'm not a member, it was my choice not to be a member, so why would I be entitled to a vote? Am I being discriminated against, even though it was my choice not to join?
Click to expand...

The Progressive Party is not our region nor is it supposed to be inclusive to all of its citizens under the law -- it's a political party that is supposed to be exclusive and divisive based on the virtue that it is a group of people that join together for greater political and ideological association. Groups -within- regions and communities will often be more exclusive than the regions and communities themselves, this does not make it right for the region itself to become just as discriminatory.
 
The friend of the court appears to misunderstand my argument.

Since time immemorial (2003), TNP Delegates have allowed TNP UN/WA nations to vote by sending a telegram to the Delegate. This ancient right is protected under the current executive policy.

Unlike the Council of Five election system, telegrams do not communicate any information which can allow one to ensure someone is not voting multiple times.

Under the interpretation of the Bill of Rights being advanced, this time-honored approach may be ruled illegal, in which case long time TNPers would find that they had to use a voter id code on an offsite to vote on WA resolutions, and the Delegate would find that they needed to do security checks potentially several times a week.

Finally, for the court's reference, I have found the original context for the development of the Bill of Rights clause being referred to: here. Unfortunately I found no debate of the addition of the second sentence. I have asked Grosseschnauzer, the author of that added sentence, to look in his records.
 
Eluvatar:
Under the interpretation of the Bill of Rights being advanced, this time-honored approach may be ruled illegal, in which case long time TNPers would find that they had to use a voter id code on an offsite to vote on WA resolutions, and the Delegate would find that they needed to do security checks potentially several times a week.
Click to expand...
Or...

ALTERNATIVELY, these players will have to "suffer" without the convenience of their tg-service and log onto the forums and post with their fellow players. Almost as though they were, *shudders* equals.

It is -more important- that everyone is enfranchised than only one group of the region. A "woe is me" story about having to create a voter id code or some cock and bull story like that does not change the cruel reality of this situation: that you and your cabinet colleagues have disenfranchised a large block of citizens on illegal and discriminatory grounds not permitted by the Bill of Rights.

Especially, when this tg-service has often been used to hide the fact the delegate is voting ever which way he wants, I really won't miss it.
 
Since I've mentioned them in two R.A. threads in relation to this topic:
From the Bill of Rights
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. 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...
And there's this as to voting:
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Click to expand...
 
This policy is not part of the constitution or the fundamental laws of the region. No nation is entitled to a vote on WA resolutions under the fundamental laws of the region. The right to vote on WA resolutions is not protected by the constitution at all.
 
Eluvatar:
This policy is not part of the constitution or the fundamental laws of the region. No nation is entitled to a vote on WA resolutions under the fundamental laws of the region. The right to vote on WA resolutions is not protected by the constitution at all.
Click to expand...
A opportunity to vote is an opportunity to vote is a opportunity to vote. Clause 10 is worded quite broadly, for good reason, as it covers all potential forms of voting. The problem here is making the process of deciding how the Delegate casts his vote in the World Assembly formal, rather than causal. It it were a causal solicitation of opinions, then it wouldn't be a vote.

It's all about how the process is structured; moving this topic to a policy adopted within the Co5 is what turns it into a vote, and thus makes Clause 10 applicable.
 
While the Council of Five has now voted to send their policy to debate on the RA, I would still like this ruling.

It doesn't make sense for the RA to potentially pass an illegal resolution.
 
Mahaj:
While the Council of Five has now voted to send their policy to debate on the RA, I would still like this ruling.

It doesn't make sense for the RA to potentially pass an illegal resolution.
Click to expand...
To clarify, the policy was not suspended by the Council of Five and is still in place pending a policy change by the Regional Assembly (see the Cabinet transcript) -- so this ruling is still very much needed.
 
Eluvatar:
This policy is not part of the constitution or the fundamental laws of the region. No nation is entitled to a vote on WA resolutions under the fundamental laws of the region. The right to vote on WA resolutions is not protected by the constitution at all.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Without a court ruling, the current policy should stand until the RA decides on the matter.

This alone will prompt the RA to act. Legislation is not the purvey of the court.
 
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific​
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Mahaj on the Limitations set by the Council of 5 in regards to World Assembly Voting​

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Mahaj.

The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:

3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the World Assembly shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. 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.

10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
Click to expand...

The Court took the following into consideration:

The Bill of Rights allows for equal and fair protection of any nation of the North Pacific under the terms and provisions of the Constitution as well as stipulating that World Assembly participation shall not be a condition for participation in the government authorities of the region. The Bill of Rights also protects a nations right to vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region.

Before making a decision the Court had to answer the following questions:

  1. Is the Delegate voting in the World Assembly a "government authority"?
  2. Is voting in the World Assembly protected under the "fundamental laws" of the region?

In response to the above questions the Court has determined the following:

As to the first question, The Delegate and all elected or appointed officials are Government Authorities however the Delegate's vote in the World Assembly is not and shall not be considered a "government authority". It is the belief of the Court that Clause 3 of the Bill of Rights was meant to allow a nation to serve in the Government without having a World Assembly nation in the Region and does not protect a nations right to determine the Delegate's World Assembly Vote.

As to the second question, The Court reviewed the Constitution and Legal Code and came to a conclusion there is no law whatsoever dictating how the Delegate must vote in World Assembly matters.

The Court therefore opines the following:

The law enacted by the Council of 5 does not break a nations rights or any law as set out by the Bill of Rights, Constitution and/or Legal Code. The right to vote in World Assembly matters is not protected under any provision in the Bill of Rights, Constitution, or Legal Code. Therefore the Council of 5 was not in violation of a nations rights under the legal documents of the North Pacific.
 
This question is to the justices, can you specifically clarify your position with respect to Liberations as that impacts more than just WA nations. Or is it the same in the court's view?
 
I would like to ask the Court to reconsider that portion of the ruling with respect to the definition of "governmental authorities." I submit that there is no basis for the Court to divine any sort of limitation as to the scope of the meaning of the phrase "governmental authorities of the region" and that there is nothing in the fundamental laws of The North Pacific that can be cited as support for such a definition.

Further, the meaning placed upon it by the Court in its ruling effectively limits and withdraws the maximum scope of the liberties and rights of the Nations of The North Pacific which is the clear purpose of The Bill of Rights from the time it was first adopted in 2005.

I further suggest that the Court does not have the authority to adopt a meaning to this phrase "governmental authorities of the region" that has the effect of creating such a limitation, and the Court did not cite any provision in the fundamental laws of the region that gives it such a definition.

Inasmuch as the Court did not request and did not give any opportunity for argument on this aspect of the issue, I ask the Court to formallly reconsider and withdraw its ruling, and give due respect to the principle that the freedom and liberty of the Nations of The North Pacific protected by the Bill of Rights should not be restricted or withdrawn by judicial fiat.
 
While Grosse's speech was verbose and I would not be surprised if the court missed my question, but I would like the court to clarify specifically regarding Liberations. If a separate request would be preferable I can do that.
 
punk d:
While Grosse's speech was verbose and I would not be surprised if the court missed my question, but I would like the court to clarify specifically regarding Liberations. If a separate request would be preferable I can do that.
Click to expand...
A separate request would be preferred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top