Amendment to the Bill of Rights

That is what I meant, to put the proposal aside.

Grosseschnauzer:

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.

Click to expand...

But since the lack of a definition is being used to exclude people of their rights and a Constitutional definition would be more vulnerable to a change of opinion and oppression .. I don't see ground for your argument, Grosse.

Eluvatar:

That is what I meant, to put the proposal aside.

Click to expand...

I second. OR maybe third by now.

finally unibot and i find ourselves on the same side of the pitch.

i support this amendment.

This should be put to vote as soon as possible.

Unibot, you're out to destroy the BoR, if we go down that path.

I frankly don't give a hoot if a definition in the Legal Code or the Constitution might be changed in the future, that is the way a democracy works.

I do object to any definition being added into the BoR, and I object even more to this definition because it does not broaden what "governmental authorities" means, it narrows it and therefore amounts to restricting the rights and liberties protected under the Bill of Rights because it includes some things, and thereby excludes others.

That sort of change is anti-democratic. The Court fashioned a definition out of nothing, and as such, the way to address is does not require an amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Let's take what the Court has done with the issue of "abstentions." The Court has flip-flopped more than once on this, and earlier this year the R.A. crafted legislation to reconcile the language in the Constitution and the Legal Code, after the Court nullified the RA Rule. We didn't have to amend the Bill of Rights to fix that problem. And the definition we adopted was carried forward in the revision of the Constitution and the Legal Code.....without having to chance the Bill of Rights. Given that, I strongly urge that any legislation on the topic be as an addition to the Legal Code or the Constitution and not the Bill of Rights.

I say again that the answer to the issue does not require an amendment to the BoR.

Here is the text of the provision in the Constitution that came out of the Constitutional Convention (along with the Bill of Rights) on the question of how the Delegate canvasses the region on casting the region's vote:

C - The UN Delegate for the Region shall vote on UN resolutions in accordance with the majority of UN member Nations in the Region as determined by a canvass of votes cast concerning each specific UN resolution on the floors of the UN on the Regional off-site forum, or through the other specified means of communication. The Delegate shall be required to post the names of all UN member Nations and their votes the Delegate has received or noted as to each resolution at vote on the floor of the UN. Each such canvass shall be posted on the Regional off-site forum in an appropriate thread, so that the votes of each UN member Nation may be confirmed and verified by the UN member Nations of the Region. The Delegate shall maintain and modify the World Factbook Entry on the Region's homepage at NationStates.net from time to time in accordance with the wishes of the Regional Government.

Click to expand...

If you're going to overrule the court, adding a similar provision to Article III of the current constitution is the way to address it. The current Constitution is silent on any references to this topic. Perhaps leaving the topic out of the revision in 2007 and this year was a mistake. But address it by a constitutional amendment or an amendment to the Legal Code, and not by amendment to the Bill of Rights.

This amendment is more a matter of legislation than 'rights', per se.

I say this because one's "rights" are preexisting to any government. That is, governments cannot grant rights because rights exist prior to the existence of any government. That, and government cannot give you anything that it has not already taken from you.

To use a deistic logic: Rights are God-given. Just ask Flemingovia.

Given the significant divide in regional opinion, I don't think amendment of the Bill of Rights is likely or desirable -- even if it were to pass, it would do so only narrowly and is unlikely in any case given the higher threshold for passage of amendments to the BoR.

With that in mind and in a spirit of cooperation, I'd like to withdraw this amendment in the hopes of reaching a compromise.