Suggested amendment to the bill of rights

Chasmanthe

Chasmanthe

TNPer
An amendment to the bill of rights requires a three-fourths majority by a vote of the regional assembly.

Blue Wolf II intends to ban Gov at the first chance he gets. For example, that is expressed in his oath of office.

It is my view that this poses a difficulty vis-a-vis adherence to the bill of rights, as it prohibits the exercise of banning powers except in certain circumstances.

To bypass this hypocrisy, we should lower our standards in order to deny Gov the protection that is afforded by the bill of rights in its current form.

Therefore I propose the following amendment to be added to the bill of rights:

v3
8. No Nation, except for Ramaba, shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation, except for Ramaba, shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code, except to eject or ban Ramaba.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific, except for Ramaba, 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, except for Ramaba, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, except for Ramaba, 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.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code, except to eject or ban Ramaba. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.

12. The Vice Delegate has the right to ban and eject the nation of Ramaba from the region.
Click to expand...

12. Notwithstanding clauses 8 and 9, the Vice Delegate has the right to ban and eject the nation of Ramaba from the region.
Click to expand...

12. Notwithstanding clause 8, the Vice Delegate has the right to ban the nation of Ramaba from the region.
Click to expand...
 
No. It would conflict with multiple articles of the BoR, and the Constitution. When the constitution says 'All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights' it means it.
 
Clearly the phrase "Notwithstanding clause 8" negates this entirely. Clearly.

Perhaps without that exact wording we could make the case that the proposed law is illegal, but with that statement in there I declare this proposal to be the very shining example of a legal law.
 
How about BW you knock it off and take things seriously for once, like properly posting your oath without adding stupid immature nonsense like the garbage you posted?
 
As a Court Justice - an officer of the law - it is my duty to take all proposed infringements of the rights of citizens and breaches of the Constitution and Bill of Right seriously, whether or not they were meant humourlessly. And, considering the Vice Delegates record, there is good reason to believe he is not merely being such.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Belschaft:
Read clause 9.
Click to expand...
Ah, seems you're right Bel.

Chasmanthe, looks like you're going to have to amend that to read "clause 8 and 9".
Click to expand...
That would still be grossly illegal; clause 12 would be a breech of clause 9. You would have to amend clause 9 as well, to make it exclude clause 12.
 
I disagree with Belschaft. The amendment would be perfectly legal even without altering clause 9. The Court, upon called to interpret the law, would have to apply the principle of implied repeal: if two statutes of equal level cannot be reconciled in some reasonable way, and do not contradict superior law, then the more recent statute is taken to have invalidated the earlier statute.

In our case, both statutes are supreme law (parts of the Bill of Rights). If the Court believes that clause 12 and clause 9 cannot be reconciled (say, for instance, by assuming that they can be interpreted as clause 9 implicitly excluding clause 12), then clause 12 would take precedence and clause 9 would be deemed repealed.

Of course, I agree it is preferable that the issue be addressed explicitly by the legislature, by amending both clauses, than having to rely on implied repeals.

And of course, I am against this amendment anyway.
 
I have amended the OP to v2 now.

I humbly request the speaker to rename the topic title to 'UNDER DEBATE'

Thank you.

Is this passable?
 
I have amended the OP to v2 now.

I humbly request the speaker to rename the topic title to 'UNDER DEBATE'

Thank you.

Is this passable?

EDIT: Sorry, double post by accident.
 
t3n, you say that as though there is only one canon which the court could apply. It could also apply the principle of absurdity avoidance, which would render this bill unconstitutional because it is an absurd conflict with core principles established in the constitution.

Speaking of principles, you could also apply the principle of interpretation in light of fundamental values, which holds that laws should be interpreted such that they don't conflict with an organization or people's fundamental values. I'd say Clause 9 coupled with this principle would stomp all over this bill.

Then there's Generalia specialibus non derogant. Basically, this means that when there is ambiguity in a new law with regard to its impact on an old law, you should favor the old law, on the theory that if the legislature wants to remove the old law, they would do so explicitly.

So no, the court would not be obligated to find it constitutional. Quite the opposite, in fact.
 
Well I tried to keep it simple but if it's not passable then simple won't work.

Thank you for the support and particularly for the constructive criticism.

I have amended the OP to v3, I would appreciate if you can please renew your arguments to whether this bill will work in its third form.
 
Once the motion to vote has been seconded it must proceed to a vote. If you have any suggestions that would help make this amendment passable please say so now.
 
Chasmanthe:
Once the motion to vote has been seconded it must proceed to a vote. If you have any suggestions that would help make this amendment passable please say so now.
Click to expand...
Chas, knock it off. What is it with you two and this personal immature vendetta against me? This is has gone way too far enough and is inappropriate and unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top