Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
There hasn't been any real suggestions for changes, so I think I am ready to formally propose the following bill to add a new chapter to the Legal Code to provide needed definitions for our governing documents:
Adding General Declarations to the Legal Code
- Thread starter Grosseschnauzer
- Start date
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
This legislation is designed to address the concerns that exist about who has or has not adopted TNP as their home region, and to undo the limitation placed on the Bill of Rights by the Court's recent decision, given the discussion about the WA regional vote issue and whose opinion should or shouldn't be considered.
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
Sadly, it doesn't do any of that. It's a lot of verbiage that doesn't really achieve anything - it's so open to abuse it's not funny.
Unfortunately, not a solution.
Unfortunately, not a solution.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Why are we blaming the Courts for interpreting the laws again? If you're going to blame anyone, blame the law and how it is written, not the Courts for their ruling.
This proposal seems more aimed at trying to "fix" the Court's ruling rather than the law that lead to that ruling.
This proposal seems more aimed at trying to "fix" the Court's ruling rather than the law that lead to that ruling.
TNP history suggests that the more closely we try to define stuff, the more problems come up the karzi to bite us on the arse.
For example, in clause 1:
Enter Joe Bloggs, citizen of Baldur. He claims residency in TNP. We say "but you haven't got a nation in TNP" he says "ah yes, but I INTEND to reside in TNP - i just have not done it yet." We say "oh shit". he takes us to court, with me as my counsel. The court ties itself in knots because of this clause. we go through six months, nine justices, two Attorney generals (although the first one refuses to give up) and five delegates, all of whom are told to fuck off when they try to intervene. in the end it is referred to the fiqh, who sort it out within 24 hours. The government falls, the constitution is overthrown and Flemingovianism is adopted in the region. Grosse refuses to hand over the root admin access, so we move forums, leaving this one a smoking ruin. Do you want that on your conscience? Well, do you? huh?
and all becuase of sloppy wording and a loophole a mile wide.
go ahead. Make my day.
For example, in clause 1:
Enter Joe Bloggs, citizen of Baldur. He claims residency in TNP. We say "but you haven't got a nation in TNP" he says "ah yes, but I INTEND to reside in TNP - i just have not done it yet." We say "oh shit". he takes us to court, with me as my counsel. The court ties itself in knots because of this clause. we go through six months, nine justices, two Attorney generals (although the first one refuses to give up) and five delegates, all of whom are told to fuck off when they try to intervene. in the end it is referred to the fiqh, who sort it out within 24 hours. The government falls, the constitution is overthrown and Flemingovianism is adopted in the region. Grosse refuses to hand over the root admin access, so we move forums, leaving this one a smoking ruin. Do you want that on your conscience? Well, do you? huh?
and all becuase of sloppy wording and a loophole a mile wide.
go ahead. Make my day.
Funkadelia
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- Funkadelia Island
^ You stole my ideaBlue Wolf II:
unibot
TNPer
Yes but to demonstrate intent they must do something more concrete then report to the courts with their thoughts on the matter in retrospect -- courts would need a demonstration of intent that is physical and evident. Say.. moving to TNP and staying there or ... trying to move to TNP and being ejected and banned by Great Bights on a mad rampage etc. If you didn't do either of these things, your right to claim intent is hardly legitimate as far as the court is concerned without some other dahm good excuse that I haven't thought of.
unibot
TNPer
This is awful, Grosse. I'm sorry.
You have to think of what a rather careless regionalist would do with this definition:
1. IF YOU DON'T INTEND TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REGIONAL SOCIETY YOU'RE NOT A CITIZEN. What is the regional society? It's whatever I dahm well define it as and you're not partaking in it. Where's your hat made of cheese? Your signature that pleases the one true god? Do you regularly participate in our WA vote? etc. etc. Witch-hunt for non-patriots etc. etc. etc.
2. YOU CONDUCT YOUR ACTIVITY OFFSITE AS BOTH A I.D.U AND A NORTH PACIFIC CITIZEN THEREFORE YOU'RE NOT A TRUE RESIDENT OF TNP. The law says you must conduct your offsite activity as apart of TNP, what does IDU have anything to do with it? None, you have no right to claim residence here you goddamn non-patriot!
3. YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS HAVING TWO HOME-REGIONS, THIS IS NOT ALLOWED, YOU'RE NOT A RESIDENT. The law uses a singular version of "home region", not allowing for the prospect of you having multiple home-regions. Furthermore, can you not be a resident of a region without feeling at home in it? For example, I'm a resident of a University "residence" -- I do not feel this place is my home, it's my dwelling at this time... but I certainly would hope that the administration of the apartment would treat me equally among the rest of the members of the residence even though I maybe do not share their sheer passion and attachment for the residence or (going back to point #1) their participation in the games and events and residence life that takes place in the residence.
Many nations in The North Pacific have a very distant connection and attachment to their region -- when Great Bights or Durk or whoever has purged The North Pacific, purged our region.. the number of victims who (a) knew what was going on, (b) cared, (c) would login again ..., (d) knew these fine gentlemen shouldn't be delegate or purging for that matter, probably was much lower in reality than you might think -- but it still matters what they did, those nations had a right to remain in TNP regardless of their distance from our administration and our community.
You may ask, why give rights to people who really don't treat their region of residence as their home? I'd reply because that's the vision for society we've always wanted to protect in The North Pacific: we're going to make sure you're treated minimally well by the administration of The North Pacific when you're in The North Pacific, regardless of if you care. I think this develops a sense of inclusiveness and legitimacy surrounding our government and also means people's first impression of our government isn't that it will treat you badly if you're not one of "them" -- because what kind of residents are going to be won over by that kind of initial impression!? Thugs.
I'd suggest a much simpler definition,
Residency in The North Pacific (as opposed to any other region) includes any Nation who resides within The North Pacific.
Main things to discuss from there is, does The North Pacific forum count?
And,
When you are removed unjustly from the region, are you, for the purposes of the law, still a resident of TNP?
I will happily fight that in court. Do you have six months to spare?unibot:
The regulation AS WORDED does not demand demonstration of intent. It only demands intent. The rest is your editorialising.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Blue Wolf, aren't you just a bit biased to the extreme?Blue Wolf II:
You help create the problem, the least you can do is get out of the way so others can fix the mess you helped make.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
The problem with your definition unibot is that it does not come close to defining "residency." The Clause1 I suggest does not apply to who is or is not a resident of any other region or what other regions might be a "home" or "homeland" in any specific case.unibot:
It only seeks to establish who is a resident and who is a citizen for The North Pacific. I don't think we're in a position to define residency or citizenship for any other region.
Then suggest specific changes addressing residency, not citizenship. As it is, I have no idea what you think should be done. And for what it's worth, doing nothing about both issues are not an option.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Logic suggests that to show intent or a lack of it, there has to be evidence. Adding a word such as :demonstrate" doesn't add anything that would logically be required anyway.flemingovia:
New Kervoskia
TNPer
Logic can scream into the wilderness all it likes but people don't have to pay attention. This'll add another month to a trial before it's dropped and little else.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Fun Fact: There are three people on the Court and their names are not all "Blue Wolf".Grosseschnauzer:
You say this proposal is going to "fix" what the Court ruled on, which again I am really tired of people blaming the Court for you know doing our job, but it does not say anything different then what the Court has said. It just changes the wording. This same wording would not prevent the law that the Co5 created from being enacted. This is a nice try at well making our laws even more complicated then what they already are.
While logic and common sense are the driving principles of the fiqh, in the constitutional court and regional assembly we have tended to base things on the actual wording of legislation, and common sense be damned.Grosseschnauzer:
I sympathise with Hileville. I am getting a little tired of the RA being used in a battle against the court - or perhaps in the ongoing informal case of Grosseschnauzer vs Blue Wolf.
unibot
TNPer
Are you looking to define resident or native? Grosse?
I think a resident is anyone in TNP, since anyone in TNP deserves the rights endowed by them in the Bill of Rights. I'd argue even if you're a raider in the region (sedition obviously overrides the right to freedom of speech) while trying to take it over, that individual has the right to freedom of speech and oddly enough, the right not to be unjustly banned or unjustly denied participation in the RA etc. .
If we want to dive further than the concept of "anyone in TNP", then you're looking for the term "native", not "resident". A native is a nation that situates itself in the North Pacific without the intention of furthering the goals and aims of a foreign force. But note, as far as feeder context goes this means recruiters are not natives -- which would be a messy political issue.
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
Wow, thanks Unibot. I'd considered this proposal pretty open to abuse by userites coming here, turns out I was looking at it the wrong way.unibot:
I think I support this proposal now.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Unibot, the "native' versus "resident" contrast is not relevant to what I am seeking to maintain. TNP has been using this as a definition to determine citizenship as what I proposed isn't a change but rather moving it from a judicial decision into the Legal Code. In fact if you compare the draft legislation to the language of the Court decision, it is a paraphrase with some editing to reflect its adaption to legislation.
The fact you use different labels for certain concepts doesn't change that a law can define a term and how it is used and applied. I suspect your concern is that adoption of this legislation threatens other goals stated or unstated, and that is not my concern.
And I will repeat what I said before, the Court adopted a opinion not founded on anything other than their opinion of what certain words mean, and their opinion has the effect of reducing the rights and liberties of the Nations of the North Pacific. It is that flaw that has to be corrected. The problem isn't with the words used in the Bill of Rights, it is the deliberate choice of this particular Court to apply a definition that narrows rather than preserves the scope of the protections of the Bill of Rights.
The fact you use different labels for certain concepts doesn't change that a law can define a term and how it is used and applied. I suspect your concern is that adoption of this legislation threatens other goals stated or unstated, and that is not my concern.
And I will repeat what I said before, the Court adopted a opinion not founded on anything other than their opinion of what certain words mean, and their opinion has the effect of reducing the rights and liberties of the Nations of the North Pacific. It is that flaw that has to be corrected. The problem isn't with the words used in the Bill of Rights, it is the deliberate choice of this particular Court to apply a definition that narrows rather than preserves the scope of the protections of the Bill of Rights.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Minutiae, bloody minutiae. It always comes along and over complicates matters.
Kingborough
TNPer
First, as Speaker I'm not sure you had to go and make two threads about the same thing. It's was not required.
Second, if this definition is the one currently in use then at least half the people who are now citizens and RA members have become so illegally. Including most of our government and judiciary.
Third, to reply to my point in the other thread - Any highly regionalist delegate or a person wishing to exclude certain opposition could easily use this law to have their citizenship revoked if they happen to be cosmopolitian and consider more than one place home. I have to agree with a lot of what Unibot has said, to my surprise. This is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
Second, if this definition is the one currently in use then at least half the people who are now citizens and RA members have become so illegally. Including most of our government and judiciary.
Third, to reply to my point in the other thread - Any highly regionalist delegate or a person wishing to exclude certain opposition could easily use this law to have their citizenship revoked if they happen to be cosmopolitian and consider more than one place home. I have to agree with a lot of what Unibot has said, to my surprise. This is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Uh, no. We applied the Bill of Rights correctly as it dealt with the WA issue. Historically, we are supported by a long standing acknowledgement that although the Delegate should vote in the WA/UN the way people want, they are in no way obligated to do so by any law. Admittedly this is the first time that I am aware of that this issue has been challenged in the Courts, but that really doesn't change anything.Grosseschnauzer:
This proposal, while being pitched as a reaction to the Courts ruling on the WA matter, doesn't address the WA matter in the slightest. If you wanted to fix the issue simply mandate that the Delegate has to vote however TNP asks them to vote and then define who has the ability to partake in said vote.
This proposal is trying to "fix" the Court Ruling rather than the law itself simply because Gross doesn't agree with the ruling and want to make a point of "correcting" the ruling rather than the law.
Funkadelia
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- Funkadelia Island
I can't believe you're still on about this whole "hate the Court" sort of thing. We did our jobs, and reviewed the legality of a policy based on the current laws as they are written. If you don't like what the laws say, then change them, but don't go on blaming the court for something we didn't write.Grosseschnauzer:
Aaargh. I am getting so tired of this Grosseschnauzer vs Blue Wolf Bullshit. Because this what this is.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Hey, don't look at me, I didn't start this fire. 
Democratic Donkeys
TNPer
Please keep this discussion on topic and bait free.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Spoil sport.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
My point is that no function of a "governmental authority," including the Delegate's voting policy in the W.A. is specifically excluded in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and for the Court to say that there is an excluded function adds something into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that is not there.
Period.
And since there is so much controversy over who can and cannot participate in that process, the best way is to settle the matter by agreeing on who is and is not entitled to participate, and thereby, who is protected in that participation under the Bill of Rights.
We've always had the position in TNP that those who are in the region specifically as representatives of foreign regions and organizations are not residents (hence, the foreign envoy masking on the forums.) It's also been generally accepted that those whose function is to post messages to recruit for other regions, especially on the RMB, are also not residents. And those residents who seek it, can register on the forums to participate as registered citizens, R.A. members, or now, as N.P.A. members.
The definition of resident this proposal starts from is the one in the court opinion on residency and forum administration. Rather than risk having a court panel, current or future play games with the definition that had already been generally accepted, it makes more sense going forward to put it into the law.
And I'll repeat this so as to be absolutely clear, the Court drew its exception as to the WA vote out of thin air; there is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that created such an exception in "governmental authorities" as used in the Bill of Rights, and to say that there is such an exception is a fabrication, a fallacy, a use of smoke and mirror to put something in those documents that isn't there, and hasn't been there.
Period.
And since there is so much controversy over who can and cannot participate in that process, the best way is to settle the matter by agreeing on who is and is not entitled to participate, and thereby, who is protected in that participation under the Bill of Rights.
We've always had the position in TNP that those who are in the region specifically as representatives of foreign regions and organizations are not residents (hence, the foreign envoy masking on the forums.) It's also been generally accepted that those whose function is to post messages to recruit for other regions, especially on the RMB, are also not residents. And those residents who seek it, can register on the forums to participate as registered citizens, R.A. members, or now, as N.P.A. members.
The definition of resident this proposal starts from is the one in the court opinion on residency and forum administration. Rather than risk having a court panel, current or future play games with the definition that had already been generally accepted, it makes more sense going forward to put it into the law.
And I'll repeat this so as to be absolutely clear, the Court drew its exception as to the WA vote out of thin air; there is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that created such an exception in "governmental authorities" as used in the Bill of Rights, and to say that there is such an exception is a fabrication, a fallacy, a use of smoke and mirror to put something in those documents that isn't there, and hasn't been there.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
*reads that statement repeatedly*Grosseschnauzer:
Nope, I still can't wrap my head around it.
I think what Gross is saying is...nope, I have no idea what he's saying, none of that made any sense at all.
Er, what it seems to say is that there is something that isn't defined in the Constitution, and for the Courts to say that it's not defined is just wrong...and that makes no sense.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
BW, I know its hard for your wolfine brain, but the decision created an exception to a definition, and there's nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or even in the Legal Code that allowed for such an exception to be fabrication out of nothing.
That is what was done.
That imposed a reduction of the protected rights and liberties contained in the Bill of Rights.
That is what some places call legislating from the bench.
That is what was done.
That imposed a reduction of the protected rights and liberties contained in the Bill of Rights.
That is what some places call legislating from the bench.
peoples empire
TNPer
I agree, This bickering is getting out of hand.Hileville:
Hileville:
I SO agree.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
I blame JAL.
FALCONKATS
TNPer
i agree
Kingborough
TNPer
[Speaker hat on] Please keep this topic free of baiting and bickering, Blue Wolf and Grosseshnauzer. I really shouldn't be having to tell an admin and a court justice this but I will lock this thread if discussion between the two of you continues to go in the direction it is heading. That is it, if continues to escalate towards baiting, insults and useless bickering.