Amendment to the Bill of Rights

Cormac

Cormac

TNPer
TNP Nation
Cormactopia III
Discord
Cormac#0804
Clause 3 of the Bill of Rights shall be amended 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. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region shall include but shall not be limited to equal participation in determining the Delegate's vote on World Assembly resolutions.
Click to expand...
 
Govindia:
Don't we already have this? I'm not following
Click to expand...
According to some, yes. According to the Delegate and others, the Bill of Rights doesn't currently protect equal participation in determining the Delegate's WA votes. Thus a new policy has been enacted to prevent citizens who either don't have a WA in TNP or who aren't in the NPA from voting on WA resolutions.

The matter is being pursued in court, but the much easier way to resolve this would be to make equal participation in determining the Delegate's WA votes explicit in the Bill of Rights.
 
The concept of equal protection is already in the Bill of Rights, and has been all along:
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...

I do not see how this amendment is necessary in the Bill of Rights. Any perceived benefit is already in the Bill of Rights.
 
@ Grosseschnauzer - I don't really disagree with your interpretation and I'd be willing to hold off on this to see if the court reaches the conclusion that the Bill of Rights already does what I'm seeking to do with this amendment. If it reaches a different conclusion, though, this amendment will be needed.
 
Against. I really don't see why Non-WA members who are not supporting the delegate (or a member of the NPA) should have the right to sway how the delegate votes. I supported the WA members only policy when the policy was removed, and I maintain my support for it now.
 
Lady Morgana:
Against. I really don't see why Non-WA members who are not supporting the delegate (or a member of the NPA) should have the right to sway how the delegate votes. I supported the WA members only policy when the policy was removed, and I maintain my support for it now.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason that Delegates exist in the first place is to give entire regional communities rather than individual WA nations a voice in the World Assembly. To argue that this voice should be restricted only to WA nations runs counter to the purpose of having Delegates.

The reasons those who don't have a WA in TNP or who aren't in the NPA should have the right to sway how the Delegate votes are several:

1) The Delegate's votes on General Assembly resolutions have at least an indirect impact on every RPing nation, whether WA or non-WA;

2) The Delegate's votes on Security Council resolutions have political implications for the entire region, not just for those who have a WA in the region or who are in the NPA, and preventing some from voting on these resolutions disenfranchises them in that it prevents them from having a say on matters that directly affect their region;

3) This policy violates if not the letter then at least the spirit of the Bill of Rights, which contains the values that represent TNP's political, social and cultural foundation.
 
If we really want to deal with this by legislative action, wouldn't it be simpler to just pass a resolution overturning the policy, rather than amending the Bill of Rights?
 
Gulliver:
If we really want to deal with this by legislative action, wouldn't it be simpler to just pass a resolution overturning the policy, rather than amending the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...
It might be simpler, but I don't think it would effectively prevent different policies with similar intent from cropping up in the future. Amending the Bill of Rights would effectively take this matter off the table once and for all, unless of course the amendment is later repealed.
 
I will give this another two days to debate, and then move this to a vote as this appears to have received three seconds. Thank you.
 
Eluvatar:
I thought the bill's author wanted to wait for the court decision?
Click to expand...
I would prefer that. If the Court rules that the Bill of Rights already provides this protection, this amendment would be superfluous.
 
Should the Court issue a ruling which decrees the current Council of Five policy is legal, I will support this.
 
Gulliver:
If we really want to deal with this by legislative action, wouldn't it be simpler to just pass a resolution overturning the policy, rather than amending the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...
This is a Civil Right, thus should be in the Bill of Rights that cannot be changed without lots of support and sobering controversy.

I will wait for a court ruling. If the right to enfranchisement in the WA is not covered by the current provisions of the Bill of Rights (which would be an absolutely farcical interpretation of the letter of the law -- as Grosse has explained), I will happily vote for this amendment.
 
Should we include a note about equality necessary in the legislature IN ADDITION to deciding how the delegate votes? Since it seems weird to specify the latter in a Bill of Rights when the former is probably even more important.
 
Clause 3 of the Bill of Rights shall be amended 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. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region shall include but shall not be limited to:

a) equal opportunity to participate in the executive, legislative and/or judicial branches of the government of The North Pacific;
b) equal participation in determining the Delegate's vote on World Assembly resolutions.
Click to expand...

How's that?
 
@Elu: I believe the purpose of a Bill of Rights is to stand the test of time as a shield against the winds of changing public sentiment.

@Cormac: Looks lovely.
 
Has anyone stopped to actually think the repercussions of this amendment? If it is an amendment to the Bill of Rights then all "resident nations" are entitled to that right and if they do not get their voice herd it would become a violation of that right. This is the wrong way to make this legislation. You are trying to add this to the Bill of Rights when it really needs to be a Law.
 
@Elu: I believe the purpose of a Bill of Rights is to stand the test of time as a shield against the winds of changing public sentiment.
Click to expand...

Surely that would include this amendment then? The Co5 policy was the way of doing things in TNP before (though not in Elu's first term). It's become an issue now due to changing public sentiment ;)

I agree with Hile. I think legislation would be more appropriate.
 
Cormac Docherty:
Clause 3 of the Bill of Rights shall be amended 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. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region shall include but shall not be limited to:

a) equal opportunity to participate in the executive, legislative and/or judicial branches of the government of The North Pacific;
b) equal participation in determining the Delegate's vote on World Assembly resolutions.
Click to expand...

How's that?
Click to expand...
I am in full support of this.
 
I wholeheartedly object to adding such detail into the Bill of Rights. Let me be clear: I strongly disagree with the approach this proposal is taking.

The Court adopted its own definition in the absence of one that is legislatively enacted, the proper course if the Court's decision is to be overruled is to adopt a definition legislatively.

In addition, the definition is flawed in that we have parts of the government that are not executive, legislative or judicial. If you want legislative language on the Delegate's voting power, you could look at the provisions of the April 2005 and July2005 Constitutions which did contain such language.

I agree with Hileville that the consequences of such an amendment to the Bill of Rights are enormous, and no compelling case has been made for such a drastic course. There's no reason not to think that an amendment to the Legal Code or the Constitution could just as effectively address the immediate issue without damaging the rights and liberties of all nations of The North Pacific.

Also a P.S., I believe Eluvatar's motion is framed in the American parliamentary vernacular which is to delay any further consideration of the proposal indefinitely (i.e., until and unless there is a subsequent vote to bring it back for further debate at a future time. If that is what Elu meant, then I will second that motion foe the reasons I just stated.
 
Hileville:
Has anyone stopped to actually think the repercussions of this amendment? If it is an amendment to the Bill of Rights then all "resident nations" are entitled to that right and if they do not get their voice herd it would become a violation of that right. This is the wrong way to make this legislation. You are trying to add this to the Bill of Rights when it really needs to be a Law.
Click to expand...
What the amendment does is define "equal participation in determining the Delegate's vote on World Assembly resolutions" as included in "governmental authorities" so that WA status can't be taken into account.

What the amendment does not do is the following:

1) It does not require the Delegate to vote based on a regional vote.
2) It does not require a certain procedure for a regional vote.

There is nothing about this amendment that would force a change in the way WA votes were cast prior to the enactment of the new WA voting policy. There is also nothing about this amendment that would force the Delegate to vote based on a regional vote. Rather, all this amendment does is establish that participation must be equal -- which is to say, the Delegate can either let everyone vote regardless of their WA status or not let anyone vote at all, take into account everyone's votes or disregard everyone's votes, but can't pick and choose based on WA status.

An amendment to the Bill of Rights is the perfect way to go about this because it's a right that we're seeking to enshrine, not simply a policy that we're seeking to legislate.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Surely that would include this amendment then? The Co5 policy was the way of doing things in TNP before (though not in Elu's first term). It's become an issue now due to changing public sentiment ;)
Click to expand...
No, not really. Equality as a social idea, Mcm, was relatively new when it was ingrained in the Bill of Rights of most real nations ..established inequality and discrimination was the predominant sociopolitical complex. This means that when, say, The National Constituent Assembly penned Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.. they did so to protect the notion that "social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good" against the political winds ... but it did not mean that the egalitarian movement was not new or a political wind itself -- the rise of egalitarianism and social liberal democracy was in obvious stark contrast with centuries of economic, social oppression and exploitative hierarchical class structures where prevailing public sentiment often supported these conditions.
 
Grosse, would you accept simply the current language we have in the Bill of Rights, plus a definition of government authorities that includes any process by which delegates' solicit opinions on how to vote on WA resolutions?
 
unibot:
Grosse, would you accept simply the current language we have in the Bill of Rights, plus a definition of government authorities that includes any process by which delegates' solicit opinions on how to vote on WA resolutions?
Click to expand...
I won't accept it as part of the Bill of Rights.

A definition since there isn't one currently, could easily be added to the Legal Code or the Constitution; my objection is to adding any definition into the Bill of Rights.

The constitution could change again, in stating how the government is structured, just as it has several times since the BoR was originally adopted, which is why I want to preserve the freedom of TNP to democratically restructure the "governing authorities" in the future, and preserve its principles as a statement of liberties and rights.

Adding a definition that includes some things necessarily exclude other things, and that would amount to a reduction of the rights and liberties protected in the BoR.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Also a P.S., I believe Eluvatar's motion is framed in the American parliamentary vernacular which is to delay any further consideration of the proposal indefinitely (i.e., until and unless there is a subsequent vote to bring it back for further debate at a future time. If that is what Elu meant, then I will second that motion foe the reasons I just stated.
Click to expand...
I third if this is the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top