Discussion re: Unibot's request to review Clause 9 of the BoR.
- Thread starter Hileville
- Start date
I believe the Court Opinion on Residency and Forum Administration touches on this. I will have to review further though.
First draft of the Court Decision. Let me know if you want things changed or if you notice any spelling or grammatical errors please.
The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Unibot.
The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:
The Court took into consideration the following previous rulings of the Court:
Ruling on Residency and Forum Administration as made on 6 August 2010 as found here.
Ruling on World Assembly Voting Policy as adopted by the Council of 5 on 25 September 2012 as found here
The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Mahaj.
The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:
The Court took the following into consideration:
The Bill of Rights allows for equal and fair protection of any nation of the North Pacific under the terms and provisions of the Constitution as well as stipulating that World Assembly participation shall not be a condition for participation in the government authorities of the region. The Bill of Rights also protects a nations right to vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region.
Before making a decision the Court had to answer the following questions:
In response to the above questions the Court has determined the following:
As to the first question, The Delegate and all elected or appointed officials are Government Authorities however the Delegate's vote in the World Assembly is not and shall not be considered a "government authority". It is the belief of the Court that Clause 3 of the Bill of Rights was meant to allow a nation to serve in the Government without having a World Assembly nation in the Region.
As to the second question, The Court reviewed the Constitution and Legal Code and came to a conclusion there is no law whatsoever dictating how the Delegate must vote in World Assembly matters.
The Court therefore opines the following:
The law enacted by the Council of State does not break a nations rights or any law as set out by the Bill of Rights, Constitution and/or Legal Code. The right to vote in World Assembly matters is not protected under any provision in the Bill of Rights, Constitution, or Legal Code.
In review of the above the Court has determined the following:
The previous rulings of the Court of the North Pacific are inaccurate. The Courts ruling on Residency and Forum Administration as delivered on 6 August 2010 introduced a definition of "residency" in which no document including the Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or Constitution mentions. After a through review of all the aforementioned documents the Court has no choice but to overturn the previous ruling. The Court also reviewed its most recent decision on World Assembly Voting and has come to a conclusion it is slightly flawed. The Court introduced an incorrect definition of "Government Authorities" in this ruling.
The Court therefore opines the following:
The Court hereby establishes that under the Bill of Rights all nations in the North Pacific with the exception of those who are performing regional recruitment on the regional message board of the North Pacific are afforded protection under said document. The Court reverses the previous ruling of the Court which created a flawed definition of "residency".
The Court in reviewing the term "Government Authorities" hereby establishes a "Government Authority" is any elected office of the North Pacific and not the individual being elected as the Court eluded to in our first ruling on the matter. The Court in this matter also re-evaluated whether or not the Council of 5 World Assembly Voting Policy was illegal. It is the determination of the Court that the policy does violate part of the Bill of Rights but is not completely illegal.
The Court establishes the following answers to the questions posed by Unibot.
The answer would be simply no. This provision requires "equal and fair treatment" to all nations of the North Pacific in relation to the provisions as laid out in the Constitution. This does not include every government affair.
This provision in Clause 9 does require "equal and fair" protection of the provisions of the Constitution for every citizen as well as all other nations covered under the Bill of Rights.
Therefore after further review the policy regarding World Assembly Voting violates the provision requiring all nations to have the right to be "heard". The Court wants to be clear here that this clause in the Bill of Rights does not set requirements on the Delegate to vote a certain way in the World Assembly. There is also no current provision in the Constitution that sets this requirement.
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Unibot on Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights
The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Unibot.
The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:
Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights:
The Court took into consideration the following previous rulings of the Court:
Ruling on Residency and Forum Administration as made on 6 August 2010 as found here.
[Please note: Both Associate Justice FALCONKATS and Eluvatar have had the opportunity over the last two or three weeks to review this opinion in its draft form. There having been no objection from them, it is now published as the response of the Court to the Request by Flemingovia.
Also, the attachments relates to the Forum Terms of Use, Terms of Service, and Board Rules will be separately reposted in the General Announcements area of the Forum for future reference by all forum users.]
The Court has received the following request for a ruling from Flemingovia, in his capacity as an Admin of the official forum:
There are two separate issues involved in this request.
First, what is the scope of the protection of The Bill of Rights for those Nations not resident in The North Pacific?
Second, in constitutional terms, what is the scope of authority for the administrators of the official regional forum?
The Bill of Rights, by its terms, protects those who are "resident" in The North Pacific. Not every nation present within TNP at Nationstates is a "resident," and not every "resident" is always within TNP.
Who is a "resident" in terms of TNP law? Primarily those Nations who choose to be here and be a part of the regional society; who conduct their in-game activity as a part of TNP, and who identify with TNP as their home region.
A Nation that is born (or created) in TNP does not automatically have residency. Residency requires both presence and some act consistent with that Nation’s intent to remain and become part of TNP (as opposed to any other region). Thus, acts such as voting or making a proposal in the World Assembly, making or seeking "endorsements" in-game with other Nations within TNP, or modifying their National profile at Nationstates.net while that Nation is within TNP are indications of that intent to be a "resident."[*]
A Nation that enters TNP as a representative or agent of some other region at Nationstates does not become a "resident", because they lack that intention that is necessary for residency. Likewise, a Nation that departs TNP at Nationstates.net with the intention to return and resume residency and is acting for or at the request of TNP authorities retains their residency here, as that Nation has not abandoned its residency.
Absent some legislative action that leads to a broader view of residency, then, a Nation which has not been a "resident" of TNP is not protected under our Bill of Rights until and unless they become a "resident" here. The answer to the first question, therefore, is "None."
Turning to the second issue, that is, the authority of Admins, Global Mods, and mods within the official forums as compared to the authority of government officials, requires one to precisely state what that authority is. The Admin have primary responsibility for enforcement of the "terms of service," [1] the "terms of use," [2] and the supplemental forum rules [3] that govern the forums. The forum moderation team has primary authority to enforce that body of rules, while many government officials have a limited amount of authority as forum moderators to assist in their enforcement.
A forum administrator’s primary obligation is to protect the integrity of the designated official forums on behalf of the regional community. If the constitutional process so permit, the members of the forum administration team not otherwise holding a government office, may exercise a very limited form of government power within the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Legal Code, and subject to the protections and limitations provided by the three central documents of TNP law.
Thus, in response to this question:
the answer depends on whether the grounds for such an action are based upon a perceived threat of violation of the body of forum rules, or a threat of violation of TNP law. If it is the former, then the Admin is acting within the Admin’s proper authority to protect the forums; if it is the latter, then the Admin should secure from an appropriate government official approval under paragraphs 8, 9, and 11 of the Bill of Rights [4] before imposing such a ban from the forums. Inasmuch as there are distinct review processes for these decisions under the Constitution and Bill of Rights as to government decisions, and by the moderation review process put in place by the forum moderation team for the team’s non-governmental decisions, the requirements of due process are met so long as the review processes are followed in good faith. Thus, where the reason for the imposition of an IP ban is based on protecting the integrity of the forums, then the Admin is exercising their core responsibility to the forums and the community. If the IP ban is to further any other governmental policy or purpose, approval by the appropriate "governmental authorities of the region" under paragraphs 8 and 11 of the Bill of Rights is required.
Notes
[*] To be clear, this phrasing is intended to exclude the out-of-region solicitors posting on the RMB at Nationstates.net from being defined as a resident, as well as those who come to the regional forums and join as representatives of any other region.
[1] – See http://www.zetaboards.com/tos/
[2] – See http://www.zetaboards.com/tou/
[3] – According to the content of the "Board Rules" currently posted within the forums’ Administator Control Panel, the content of the Board Rules are as follows:
[4] The Bill of Rights provide:
Also, the attachments relates to the Forum Terms of Use, Terms of Service, and Board Rules will be separately reposted in the General Announcements area of the Forum for future reference by all forum users.]
The Court has received the following request for a ruling from Flemingovia, in his capacity as an Admin of the official forum:
There are two separate issues involved in this request.
First, what is the scope of the protection of The Bill of Rights for those Nations not resident in The North Pacific?
Second, in constitutional terms, what is the scope of authority for the administrators of the official regional forum?
The Bill of Rights, by its terms, protects those who are "resident" in The North Pacific. Not every nation present within TNP at Nationstates is a "resident," and not every "resident" is always within TNP.
Who is a "resident" in terms of TNP law? Primarily those Nations who choose to be here and be a part of the regional society; who conduct their in-game activity as a part of TNP, and who identify with TNP as their home region.
A Nation that is born (or created) in TNP does not automatically have residency. Residency requires both presence and some act consistent with that Nation’s intent to remain and become part of TNP (as opposed to any other region). Thus, acts such as voting or making a proposal in the World Assembly, making or seeking "endorsements" in-game with other Nations within TNP, or modifying their National profile at Nationstates.net while that Nation is within TNP are indications of that intent to be a "resident."[*]
A Nation that enters TNP as a representative or agent of some other region at Nationstates does not become a "resident", because they lack that intention that is necessary for residency. Likewise, a Nation that departs TNP at Nationstates.net with the intention to return and resume residency and is acting for or at the request of TNP authorities retains their residency here, as that Nation has not abandoned its residency.
Absent some legislative action that leads to a broader view of residency, then, a Nation which has not been a "resident" of TNP is not protected under our Bill of Rights until and unless they become a "resident" here. The answer to the first question, therefore, is "None."
Turning to the second issue, that is, the authority of Admins, Global Mods, and mods within the official forums as compared to the authority of government officials, requires one to precisely state what that authority is. The Admin have primary responsibility for enforcement of the "terms of service," [1] the "terms of use," [2] and the supplemental forum rules [3] that govern the forums. The forum moderation team has primary authority to enforce that body of rules, while many government officials have a limited amount of authority as forum moderators to assist in their enforcement.
A forum administrator’s primary obligation is to protect the integrity of the designated official forums on behalf of the regional community. If the constitutional process so permit, the members of the forum administration team not otherwise holding a government office, may exercise a very limited form of government power within the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Legal Code, and subject to the protections and limitations provided by the three central documents of TNP law.
Thus, in response to this question:
the answer depends on whether the grounds for such an action are based upon a perceived threat of violation of the body of forum rules, or a threat of violation of TNP law. If it is the former, then the Admin is acting within the Admin’s proper authority to protect the forums; if it is the latter, then the Admin should secure from an appropriate government official approval under paragraphs 8, 9, and 11 of the Bill of Rights [4] before imposing such a ban from the forums. Inasmuch as there are distinct review processes for these decisions under the Constitution and Bill of Rights as to government decisions, and by the moderation review process put in place by the forum moderation team for the team’s non-governmental decisions, the requirements of due process are met so long as the review processes are followed in good faith. Thus, where the reason for the imposition of an IP ban is based on protecting the integrity of the forums, then the Admin is exercising their core responsibility to the forums and the community. If the IP ban is to further any other governmental policy or purpose, approval by the appropriate "governmental authorities of the region" under paragraphs 8 and 11 of the Bill of Rights is required.
Notes
[*] To be clear, this phrasing is intended to exclude the out-of-region solicitors posting on the RMB at Nationstates.net from being defined as a resident, as well as those who come to the regional forums and join as representatives of any other region.
[1] – See http://www.zetaboards.com/tos/
[2] – See http://www.zetaboards.com/tou/
[3] – According to the content of the "Board Rules" currently posted within the forums’ Administator Control Panel, the content of the Board Rules are as follows:
[4] The Bill of Rights provide:
Ruling on World Assembly Voting Policy as adopted by the Council of 5 on 25 September 2012 as found here
Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Mahaj on the Limitations set by the Council of 5 in regards to World Assembly Voting
The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Mahaj.
The Court took into consideration the Relevant sections of the Bill of Rights of the North Pacific:
The Court took the following into consideration:
The Bill of Rights allows for equal and fair protection of any nation of the North Pacific under the terms and provisions of the Constitution as well as stipulating that World Assembly participation shall not be a condition for participation in the government authorities of the region. The Bill of Rights also protects a nations right to vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region.
Before making a decision the Court had to answer the following questions:
- Is the Delegate voting in the World Assembly a "government authority"?
- Is voting in the World Assembly protected under the "fundamental laws" of the region?
In response to the above questions the Court has determined the following:
As to the first question, The Delegate and all elected or appointed officials are Government Authorities however the Delegate's vote in the World Assembly is not and shall not be considered a "government authority". It is the belief of the Court that Clause 3 of the Bill of Rights was meant to allow a nation to serve in the Government without having a World Assembly nation in the Region.
As to the second question, The Court reviewed the Constitution and Legal Code and came to a conclusion there is no law whatsoever dictating how the Delegate must vote in World Assembly matters.
The Court therefore opines the following:
The law enacted by the Council of State does not break a nations rights or any law as set out by the Bill of Rights, Constitution and/or Legal Code. The right to vote in World Assembly matters is not protected under any provision in the Bill of Rights, Constitution, or Legal Code.
In review of the above the Court has determined the following:
The previous rulings of the Court of the North Pacific are inaccurate. The Courts ruling on Residency and Forum Administration as delivered on 6 August 2010 introduced a definition of "residency" in which no document including the Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or Constitution mentions. After a through review of all the aforementioned documents the Court has no choice but to overturn the previous ruling. The Court also reviewed its most recent decision on World Assembly Voting and has come to a conclusion it is slightly flawed. The Court introduced an incorrect definition of "Government Authorities" in this ruling.
The Court therefore opines the following:
The Court hereby establishes that under the Bill of Rights all nations in the North Pacific with the exception of those who are performing regional recruitment on the regional message board of the North Pacific are afforded protection under said document. The Court reverses the previous ruling of the Court which created a flawed definition of "residency".
The Court in reviewing the term "Government Authorities" hereby establishes a "Government Authority" is any elected office of the North Pacific and not the individual being elected as the Court eluded to in our first ruling on the matter. The Court in this matter also re-evaluated whether or not the Council of 5 World Assembly Voting Policy was illegal. It is the determination of the Court that the policy does violate part of the Bill of Rights but is not completely illegal.
The Court establishes the following answers to the questions posed by Unibot.
The answer would be simply no. This provision requires "equal and fair treatment" to all nations of the North Pacific in relation to the provisions as laid out in the Constitution. This does not include every government affair.
This provision in Clause 9 does require "equal and fair" protection of the provisions of the Constitution for every citizen as well as all other nations covered under the Bill of Rights.
Therefore after further review the policy regarding World Assembly Voting violates the provision requiring all nations to have the right to be "heard". The Court wants to be clear here that this clause in the Bill of Rights does not set requirements on the Delegate to vote a certain way in the World Assembly. There is also no current provision in the Constitution that sets this requirement.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Once again, a flawless statement.
I approve as is.
I approve as is.