Amendment to the Constitution

Haor Chall

Haor Chall

The Power of the Dark Side
TNP Nation
Haor Chall
The Bill of Rights has gone unamended for a long time, and with good reason - it had stood the test of time as a statement of the principles to which TNP believes.

However.

As should be clear by now, the greatest problem facing TNP - the real threat - is the amount of people with vested, outside, interests who are interferring and intervening in our domestic politics. This problem needs addressing, if it can at this stage, and the best way to do that is ensure those who wish to take part in the government of this region have a commitment to this region.

As such, my proposal is to amend the Bill of Rights as follows:

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...
 
HC,

How does this address your concern? I don't quite see the link. Are you trying to enforce government officials have their WA nation in TNP as a condition of service?
 
I think this amendment allows for that possibility.

However, given the number of people active in TNP at the moment who have other (primary?) alliegences outside this region, this amendment does not have a cat's chance in hell of passing.
 
I think HC has the right idea.

TNP has become too invested with foreign influence a lot of which is in direct conflict with this region's interests.

If nations were required to be WA members and have that nation in TNP in order to participate in government (with the logical exceptions like the NPA and such) it would go a long way in improving regional security and putting a lid on a lot of problems in the long run, especially the fact that we always seem to have too many chiefs and not enough Indians (pardon the turn of phrase, but you know what I mean).

Second, as a side note, what we also need to look at is making TNP a republic or democratic republic rather than a direct democracy (which always does itself in as just a matter of time). Republics go a long way in producing stability and are more effective than chaotic and sometimes directionless, unrestrained total democracy.

HC's idea is one that I have been in support of for a very long time.
 
flemingovia:
I think this amendment allows for that possibility.

However, given the number of people active in TNP at the moment who have other (primary?) alliegences outside this region, this amendment does not have a cat's chance in hell of passing.
Click to expand...

Flem - quite possibly, as I said in the OP - it may be that we have passed the stage where this can be addressed. I hope not, but either way I expect the debate - and vote - to be revealing.

PD - This would simply amend the Bill of Rights to ensure that any future requirements for WA status would be constitutional. This is the difficult bit to achieve, once (if) it is passed then we will be in a position to debate what level of involvement should require WA status within TNP. We could include both and pass as an omnibus, I suppose, but as Flem said, considering the high bar to amend the Bill of Rights, I think it is better to focus on that first.
 
We're going to lose quite a few active RA members if we impose such a WA requirement, and since most of those people are not actually working on behalf of an outside organization the benefits wouldn't be worth the hit.

EDIT: Also, you can have a WA in TNP but still be working for an outside group. Stationing a WA in a region doesn't really cost anything to possible plotters.
 
The bill of rights change would make it constitutional to decide on particular questions whether TNP WA membership should be necessary on a case by case basis. It would also make it constitutional to decide on particular questions whether disclosing your WA might be truly mandatory for certain purposes on a case by case basis.

Given that I don't believe that there is a natural right to duality, this makes sense to me in general terms. That said, I'm on the fence as to whether we should actually do it.

You're right that no such requirement could do anything against clandestine infiltrators willing to commit their WA to the infiltration, but I don't think that's what Haor Chall hopes to combat.
 
Gulliver:
We're going to lose quite a few active RA members if we impose such a WA requirement, and since most of those people are not actually working on behalf of an outside organization the benefits wouldn't be worth the hit.

EDIT: Also, you can have a WA in TNP but still be working for an outside group. Stationing a WA in a region doesn't really cost anything to possible plotters.
Click to expand...
Opposed for all of the reasons Gulliver said, and because we may lose active RA members (and potentially Council of Five ministers) who would meet these requirements because they vehemently disagree with this policy direction.

This is essentially a recipe for making TNP as inactive as some of the other GCRs are. I hope TNP doesn't decide to go that route.
 
The proposed remedy is: reducing the bill of rights.

In order to begin to address the "real threat" surely we have to first establish that the threat is real? In order to weigh the costs and benefits we have to know how much interfering and intervening really is there and where is it arising?
 
I'm not sure what it is Haor Chall is trying to address, but that sentence was part of the (originally titled Declaration of Rights) that came out of the Constitutional Convention, and had been proposed during negotiations between the North Pacific Directorate and the North Pacific Underground during a summit conference in March of 2005.

Requiring WA membership as a condition of citizenship was a favored tool of the Pixiedance dictatorship, and I'm aware that other regions have done the same thing as a tool of repression elsewhere in Nationstates.

Removing that sentence has the effect of limiting the rights and liberties of TNPers, and I do not think that is the way to go. Perhaps one should focus on exactly in what ways changes are actually needed (and then we can look to see what actually needs changing. But I am very adverse to ever changing the Bill of Rights to restrict liberties as opposed to expanding them -- which is what was done with Clause 8 as part of the most recent constitutional revision.
 
For me this clause is a symbol of the subservience of the people of TNP to Constitution. For even if the people of TNP wanted a particular post to be filled only by a TNP WA member, the bill of limitations (sorry ... bill of rights) would currently forbid them from doing that.

This change makes no requirements. It simply allows scope for a change to be made by the RA should they wish it. Now I know there are those who wish to limit this freedom, but I support any change that gives the RA the power to make change should they wish it.
 
Cormac Docherty:
Gulliver:
We're going to lose quite a few active RA members if we impose such a WA requirement, and since most of those people are not actually working on behalf of an outside organization the benefits wouldn't be worth the hit.

EDIT: Also, you can have a WA in TNP but still be working for an outside group. Stationing a WA in a region doesn't really cost anything to possible plotters.
Click to expand...
Opposed for all of the reasons Gulliver said, and because we may lose active RA members (and potentially Council of Five ministers) who would meet these requirements because they vehemently disagree with this policy direction.

This is essentially a recipe for making TNP as inactive as some of the other GCRs are. I hope TNP doesn't decide to go that route.
Click to expand...
This.

This clause is a protection of people's civil liberties. It's not an oppression of the RA to make it illegal to ban certain "types" of TNPers from government participation--it's a protection of TNPers against oppression.
 
Earth:
Cormac Docherty:
Gulliver:
We're going to lose quite a few active RA members if we impose such a WA requirement, and since most of those people are not actually working on behalf of an outside organization the benefits wouldn't be worth the hit.

EDIT: Also, you can have a WA in TNP but still be working for an outside group. Stationing a WA in a region doesn't really cost anything to possible plotters.
Click to expand...
Opposed for all of the reasons Gulliver said, and because we may lose active RA members (and potentially Council of Five ministers) who would meet these requirements because they vehemently disagree with this policy direction.

This is essentially a recipe for making TNP as inactive as some of the other GCRs are. I hope TNP doesn't decide to go that route.
Click to expand...
This.

This clause is a protection of people's civil liberties. It's not an oppression of the RA to make it illegal to ban certain "types" of TNPers from government participation--it's a protection of TNPers against oppression.
Click to expand...
I believe that Cormac and Earth have essentially said everything I have to say on the matter
 
I see no positive to this amendment. I believe it would be counter productive to keeping the region active. Therefore, I am opposed.
 
And I believe the Council of Five failed to take into account the following other provisions of 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...

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 fact remains that we've recognized duality in TNP for a long time, and once it was accepted, there hasn;t been this sort of effort to deprive citizenship as we're seeing at the moment.

This amendment and the opposity contrasting proposal are both bad.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I'm not sure what it is Haor Chall is trying to address, but that sentence was part of the (originally titled Declaration of Rights) that came out of the Constitutional Convention, and had been proposed during negotiations between the North Pacific Directorate and the North Pacific Underground during a summit conference in March of 2005.

Requiring WA membership as a condition of citizenship was a favored tool of the Pixiedance dictatorship, and I'm aware that other regions have done the same thing as a tool of repression elsewhere in Nationstates.

Removing that sentence has the effect of limiting the rights and liberties of TNPers, and I do not think that is the way to go. Perhaps one should focus on exactly in what ways changes are actually needed (and then we can look to see what actually needs changing. But I am very adverse to ever changing the Bill of Rights to restrict liberties as opposed to expanding them -- which is what was done with Clause 8 as part of the most recent constitutional revision.
Click to expand...
What I'm trying to address is the fact that TNP has become, of late (though it has been a problem at various times before, though I think this is the worst I have ever seen it) a battleground between outside vested interests who merely see TNP as a bauble to fight over, rather than being members of the community who have the interests of the community first.

This wouldn't resolve that alone, of course, but it would go some way to correcting the balance.

I'm not suggesting or advocating that WA membership becomes required for citizenship. What this amendment would do is allow the RA to consider where WA membership should be a requirement within our government. For example - maybe for officers in the executive? Perhaps WA membership should be a requirement to serve as Delegate...?
 
A better solution may be to codify who is a resident, and therefore is a citizen of TNP, and address a player's WA nation status that way.

This might permit a nation who wants to be a resident and citizen to make that known whether or not they have a WA nation, much less a WA nation in TNP.

If we define citizenship or residency and preserve the rights of Nations as currently expressed in the Bill of Rights, then I think we can find a middle ground and avoid the extremes.

With the recognition of WA "switchers" who may, at times, actually be
Delegates in-game, a statutory approach might be best.

I'd like to preserve the greatest amount of flexibility to participation in TNP that is possible given that we recognize the concept of duality and have recognized it for a long time.

As to the requirement of being in the WA to be Delegate, it is impossible for one to be Delegate in game without WA membership (which is different than founders who don't need to be), and because of that, logically, WA membership with a nation in TNP is a necessity in order to exercise that duty of being the elected TNP Delegate.

Because of that logical imperative, I don't think it is necessary to amend the Bill of Rights or the Constitution to provide for that. And since one is not required to be Delegate, one is not being required to have a TNP-located nation in the W.A.

Likewise on positing a position as to the Region's WA votes cast by the Delegate. One is not required to post a position. I think it is a mistake to formalize any rules on this, it's always been informally done and a Delegate may choose not to consider the positions of those who do not have a WA nation in TNP. It's the attempt to formalize this that is creating the problem and the best way to address it is to not formalize the practice. Keep it informal, and these other issues simply do not arise.
 
I am pretty much opposed. This doesn't really make a lot of sense, the upcoming ideology of "You must have a WA in TNP, to participate in the government," is not very inclusive, and if that were to be the case, it would make TNP very closed off to newcomers, and exclusive to those only with vested interests in keeping their main/WA nation in TNP, therefor making TNP your official residing region.
 
Are you suggesting simply that if the resident-nation in TNP isn't WA, then it's, for lack of more formal phrasing, not really any business of TNP to know what the player behind the resident-nation's WA is, so long as it is not a second resident-nation with citizenship in TNP or the SC has reasonable grounds to suspect foul play in regards to the security of TNP or its allies?

Since that sounds a-okay to me. :/
 
This amendment, is entirely silly.

You seem to be attempting to find a problem when there isn't so much of one.
 
Haor Chall:
What I'm trying to address is the fact that TNP has become, of late (though it has been a problem at various times before, though I think this is the worst I have ever seen it) a battleground between outside vested interests who merely see TNP as a bauble to fight over, rather than being members of the community who have the interests of the community first.
Click to expand...
Who are these people, exactly, and how do you know that they aren't members of the community who have the interests of the community first? I ask because I haven't noticed a significant number of such people, if any.
 
While as Speaker I wish to remain neutral on things such as this, I have to ask how this would work; as it stands, half the Co5, the Speaker, several Court Justices and more would have to resign if someone actually used this amendment. It does not sound feasible.
 
Tough crowd, HC.

No one seems to have taken up the argument I presented in that the RA could specify which offices must be held by persons whose primary allegiance is TNP.

Many seem to be opposed to HC's specific legal change but are you also opposed to the spirit of his change? If so, then we need to apologize to Unibot for running him out of office due to his external allegiance influencing his time here. And we also need stop talking about everyone's outside allegiance if we do not wish to curtail positions based on primary allegiance to TNP.

Yet in many ways game mechanics, as Grosse mentioned, almost act as a de facto mechanism to force one's allegiance. But I think people need to think about the implications of what they say in response to HC's proposal.

As for me, I'm cool with people having mutliple allegiances and I think 'strife' inherent with people coming from different perspectives leads to the 'struggle' that is only possible when there are a number of people jockeying for power.
 
flemingovia:
However, given the number of people active in TNP at the moment who have other (primary?) alliegences outside this region, this amendment does not have a cat's chance in hell of passing.
Click to expand...
:winner: :winner: :winner: :winner: :winner: :winner: :winner: :winner: :winner: :winner:

"Flemingovia is always right. I will listen to Flemingovia."

One only has to glance at the signatures of some of those who have come out most strongly against this idea to get an insight into where they are coming from.
 
punk d:
If so, then we need to apologize to Unibot for running him out of office due to his external allegiance influencing his time here. And we also need stop talking about everyone's outside allegiance if we do not wish to curtail positions based on primary allegiance to TNP.
Click to expand...
I somewhat regret my role in trying to have Unibot recalled because I've since seen him demonstrate his strong dedication to TNP, but I'd like to point out there were specific circumstances involved there. This would give blanket power to restrict the rights of citizens based on their WA status -- and regardless of whether or not their external commitments are influencing them here. Nobody was trying to recall Unibot because his WA nation wasn't in TNP and I would never support such a recall effort, let alone propose it.
 
punk d:
Tough crowd, HC.

No one seems to have taken up the argument I presented in that the RA could specify which offices must be held by persons whose primary allegiance is TNP.
Click to expand...
Yup, no suprises there though.


Exactly. This amendment, by itself, actually makes no substantive changes. What it would do is allow the RA to consider whether there are cases where WA membership should be a prequisite. It doesn't give "blanket power" to anybody, as the RA is the body that would get to decide.
 
Haor Chall:
Exactly. This amendment, by itself, actually makes no substantive changes. What it would do is allow the RA to consider whether there are cases where WA membership should be a prequisite. It doesn't give "blanket power" to anybody, as the RA is the body that would get to decide.
Click to expand...
It gives blanket power to the RA, and there are some of us who don't believe that the RA should have the blanket power to pick and choose who can participate in which governmental authorities based upon their WA status. The fact that the RA is directly democratic doesn't mean the majority should get to decide everything. The purpose of a Bill of Rights is primarily to protect the rights of minorities from majorities that would seek to limit or remove them.
 
Then who gets to choose? I don't support or oppose this proposal, but I'm just interested in hearing your reasoning. I feel that the RA should have the power to deicde such things, because it is the legislative branch of TNP government. Furthermore, would it not make more sense for most of the citizens to decide what happens regarding this instead of, say, the sole Delegate?
 
Funkadelia:
Then who gets to choose? I don't support or oppose this proposal, but I'm just interested in hearing your reasoning. I feel that the RA should have the power to deicde such things, because it is the legislative branch of TNP government. Furthermore, would it not make more sense for most of the citizens to decide what happens regarding this instead of, say, the sole Delegate?
Click to expand...
Essentially, I don't think anyone should choose. I think this should be off limits, that the Bill of Rights should continue to guarantee equal participation in governmental authorities without regard to WA status and that nobody -- not the Delegate, not the RA, not the Court -- should be able to overrule that.

Which is not to say that I think the RA shouldn't be able to alter the Bill of Rights, but in general I don't think it should and in this particular situation it definitely shouldn't.
 
It gives blanket power to the RA, and there are some of us who don't believe that the RA should have the blanket power to pick and choose who can participate in which governmental authorities based upon their WA status.
Click to expand...


Wow. So much for democracy. I will not take any more lectures about how undemocratic Flemingovianism is.

Flemingovianism is the rule of God. What we have now is the rule by a piece of paper.
 
Since its now allowed to quote from the IRC, I'll put this here;

Kingborough: TBH Flem, thats like saying the Senate of the USA should be allowed to make a decision on making it illegal for all citizens without $10,000 in the bank to vote
[11:02pm] flemingovia: My answer to that ohe woudl be "yes"
Click to expand...

That about sums up Flemingovia's feelings on this, and disgusts me that he would want something comparable to the above to be lawful.
 
That's really not okay, Kingborough.

#tnp:
09:02 <+madjack> "Certain members of TNP are too focussed on total democracy at the expense of efficiency of government or common sense: Discuss."
09:02 <@AbbeyPhone> Hmm?
09:02 <+Kingborough> TBH Flem, thats like saying the Senate of the USA should be allowed to make a decision on making it illegal for all citizens without $10,000 in the bank to vote
09:02 <@flemingovia> My answer to that ohe woudl be "yes"
09:03 <@flemingovia> Well, if TNP is going to make such a big thing about democracy it is worth remembering that we do not have a democracy. We have a constititonocracy: Rule by paper.
09:03 <@flemingovia> * constitutionocracy
Click to expand...
 
Yes. his Yes was an answer to mine.

"09:03 <@flemingovia> Well, if TNP is going to make such a big thing about democracy it is worth remembering that we do not have a democracy. We have a constititonocracy: Rule by paper." was an answer to Madjack

I didn't even see that someone would mistake that for otherwise, so I didn't bother with the rest of the log as it wasn't needed. Sorry
 
Kingborough:
Yes. his Yes was an answer to mine.
Click to expand...
Acutally, no. My answer was to Madjack's question:

"09:02 <+madjack> "Certain members of TNP are too focussed on total democracy at the expense of efficiency of government or common sense: Discuss.""

If you look at the timestamp you will see that we were all posting at roughly the same time: you just hit return before I did.

it is interesting that this episode has happened so soon after the decision was made to allow free posting from #tnp on this forum.

It demonstrates how selective, editorialised quotes from the channel, taken out of context, can allow someone to be characterises as disgusting.

Might give some pause for thought.
 
flemingovia:
Kingborough:
Yes. his Yes was an answer to mine.
Click to expand...
Acutally, no. My answer was to Madjack's question:

"09:02 <+madjack> "Certain members of TNP are too focussed on total democracy at the expense of efficiency of government or common sense: Discuss.""

If you look at the timestamp you will see that we were all posting at roughly the same time: you just hit return before I did.

it is interesting that this episode has happened so soon after the decision was made to allow free posting from #tnp on this forum.

It demonstrates how selective, editorialised quotes from the channel, taken out of context, can allow someone to be characterises as disgusting.

Might give some pause for thought.
Click to expand...
I apologize for misreading your quote then Flemingovia. I am most sorry.
 
No, no, no, a million times. Not a chance in -hell-.

This is how to kill TNP in one very easy step. People will come with agendas no matter what you do, and by requiring a WA within the region you will shatter participation from existing players who add activity because they can jump in and start doing things fairly rapidly. For many of us, we may have allegiences elsewhere - yes - but we're also capable of thinking about TNP when we're dealing with TNP. I've got plenty of other allegiences, however even prior to joining the NPA, whenever there was an unendorsement campaign or similar I placed WA on my TNP nation for the duration of the trouble. But I wouldn't want to keep it stuck here for extended periods, as the nature of the other things I do within NS require my WA to be relatively mobile.

This is a removal of one of the fundamental protections that people are free to have their WA where they wish, as long as it is not actively working against TNP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top