- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
I think we're both on topic, surprisingly. Having a disagreement, but on topic none the less.
Adding General Declarations to the Legal Code
- Thread starter Grosseschnauzer
- Start date
unibot
TNPer
You're both on topic and being constructive on both sides, in my opinion.
Now, Grosse, BWII is right, the court didn't define resident recently in the last case -- I vaguely remember this coming in the TNP v. Mall case. Is this what you're opposing, Grosse? In which case, what definition did the court use then? I'm trying to decide if your definition is better, Grosse, because at the present moment, your definition is incredibly limiting.
Now, Grosse, BWII is right, the court didn't define resident recently in the last case -- I vaguely remember this coming in the TNP v. Mall case. Is this what you're opposing, Grosse? In which case, what definition did the court use then? I'm trying to decide if your definition is better, Grosse, because at the present moment, your definition is incredibly limiting.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
The definitions I'm raising are all related to the Council of Five policy vote on the World Assembly voting policy. The Court decision, while it may not have mentioned "residency" or "citizenship" did indirectly lead to allowing a different definition of "residency" and "citizenship" to be applied, and it did this by creating an exception to the meaning of "governmental authorities" as used in the Bill of Rights.
Unibot, i don't agree with your view that the definition of "residency" is narrow; you are assuming a non-duality player approach which has not been the case in TNP. As I noted before, there's no reason why a player with a nation in TNP that does those things consistent with a intentional choice of residency here (and with the exceptions stated both in the Court decision and in this bill that indicate a choice not to be a resident here) isn't entitled to be considered a resident and a citizen of TNP.
IF there's going to be a different definition of those three terms, I much rather we get them enacted as positive law that have conflicting meanings. I'm trying to use what was in place before this whole issue with the WA vote arose because I consider that matter, and the subsequent Court decision related to it as opening a massive can of worms that will lead to chaos over time.
(If you haven't figured it out or don't remember, I was critical of the Cof5 policy vote just as I am about the Court decision, so I view my efforts with this bill as trying to undo the damage from both actions.)
Unibot, i don't agree with your view that the definition of "residency" is narrow; you are assuming a non-duality player approach which has not been the case in TNP. As I noted before, there's no reason why a player with a nation in TNP that does those things consistent with a intentional choice of residency here (and with the exceptions stated both in the Court decision and in this bill that indicate a choice not to be a resident here) isn't entitled to be considered a resident and a citizen of TNP.
IF there's going to be a different definition of those three terms, I much rather we get them enacted as positive law that have conflicting meanings. I'm trying to use what was in place before this whole issue with the WA vote arose because I consider that matter, and the subsequent Court decision related to it as opening a massive can of worms that will lead to chaos over time.
(If you haven't figured it out or don't remember, I was critical of the Cof5 policy vote just as I am about the Court decision, so I view my efforts with this bill as trying to undo the damage from both actions.)
so let me see if I have got this.
The Co5 trumps the community. the Court trumps the Co5. The RA trumps the court and Grosseschnauzer trumps the Regional Assembly.
Now if someone can tell me whether aces are high or low, I may be able to play.
The Co5 trumps the community. the Court trumps the Co5. The RA trumps the court and Grosseschnauzer trumps the Regional Assembly.
Now if someone can tell me whether aces are high or low, I may be able to play.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Are you, like the other extreme, that afraid of letting the R.A. resolve these questions by legislation?flemingovia:
It's interesting that no one has been able to show that the Court's judicially created exception does not reduce the scope of the liberties and rights in the Bill of Rights.
It's also interesting that those who are suggesting that the definitions of residency and citizenship (based on the Court's precedental opinion on the topic) seem unable to offer any alternative that would in their view provide a more "current" view of residency and citizenship that is protected by the Bill of Rights.
Fear? Of course not. I simply do not follow your militant secularist agenda in seeing the sum of all wisdom in the Regional Assembly (as guided, naturally, by you). vox populi is not vox dei. vox dei is vox dei. Happiness does not come from the forming of many laws, and if you could only find it in your heart to embrace that, you would finally find the happiness that has eluded you these many years.Grosseschnauzer:
true wisdom is only found in sumbission to the one true God, and heeding his ways. In this is happiness and progress together as a region.
In your secularist mindset I fear you will not realise this yet. But I have hope for you, young Grossescnauzer, that one day you will embrace Flemingovianism and find happiness.
unibot
TNPer
Grosse, I agree with you, except your own definitions can be used just as narrow as whatever the court has settled on in practice. You need something that is very holistic and inclusive and guarantees the Bill of Rights to all residents of the North Pacific. Not on the basis of messy concepts like self-identification and participation which muddy the definitional waters and give regionalist tyrants leeway to enforce unpleasant regimes.Grosseschnauzer:
I am not assuming a non-duality player approach. Whatever definition we accept should be inclusive enough that whether one accepts duality or not is irrelevant, by making it tough enough conditions you lend yourself to the duality discussion but also to a wider problem of abuse.
Answer this: what is wrong with the Bill of Rights being guaranteed to "all nations in the North Pacific notwithstanding those whose presence in The North Pacific is for the purposes of satisfying a foreign force's goals, aims or objectives"? (Assuming we can simply define resident as this)
unibot
TNPer
This does not cover what you want it to cover, Grosse.
It needs to cover:
1. "Governmental authorities" refers to, without limitation, any institution, office or position of The North Pacific established under the Constitution or the Legal Code, in addition to any referendum or plebiscite organized by said parties to gauge public opinion.
On the basis that any referendum or plebiscite turns the people into their own informal institution and uses them as such.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I would consider referenda, by whatever name, to be an institution within my definition, as I would consider the NPA as an organized militia and thus, an institution as well, or the diplomatic corps, or the Security Council.unibot:
The current constitution and legal code don't even allow for referenda, although the NPC era constitution did (by the bushel since there was no legislative power except for registered voters.) And if such were to be created, it would have taken place through the enactment of a law or a constitutional amendment, and that would make it a formal and not an informal institution of the "governmental authorities of the region."
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
He may not always be a Justice but he will always be...unibot:
a Judge.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Unibot, some organ of government would have to organize a referendum, thus it would require an "institution" of the governmental authorities of the region in order to hold one. It won't just happen in a vacuum.
Mr. Wolf, go spam your own thread. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf, go spam your own thread. Thank you very much.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
What exactly are you asking beginning with the word "notwithstanding"? I can read your question to have two entirely opposite meanings.
I think it simplier to have a functional definition of residency that includes any act consistent with the intent to be a citizen of TNP and exclude those in TNP for the benefit of another region or multi-regional organization. I think you are trying to make it complicated, when it really isn't.
Juris Lancaster
TNPer
I would have to say that both the Court ruling and this legislation of which Grosse proposes, have the same limiting factor. Therefore this proposed legislation is fixing nothing.
I will say though, that the WA is the WA, and not all nations in this region are WA. The WA does not really effect anything that this government (or region, for that matter) does except have the Delegate also be Head of Government instead of Head of State.
Further, if there is something missing from the constitution, it is meant to be filled in with some law. Whether it is the RA or the Co5 or the Court, as long as the hole is covered.
I do say, if it is the WA issue that is the problem, then fix that problem instead of attacking the symptoms.
I will say though, that the WA is the WA, and not all nations in this region are WA. The WA does not really effect anything that this government (or region, for that matter) does except have the Delegate also be Head of Government instead of Head of State.
Further, if there is something missing from the constitution, it is meant to be filled in with some law. Whether it is the RA or the Co5 or the Court, as long as the hole is covered.
I do say, if it is the WA issue that is the problem, then fix that problem instead of attacking the symptoms.