An amendment to our laws

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
The recent judicial elections have highlighed a flaw in our laws, one so obvious I cannot understand why it has not been noticed before. This change in the Legal code will mend that flaw:

SECTION 4.2.5

CURRENT EDIT:

5. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.

NEW VERSION

5. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates, except Flemingovia, may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.

Section 4.1: Oaths of Office

CURRENT VERSION:

1. All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.
Quote:
I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.

NEW VERSION:

1. All government officials except Flemingovia will take the following Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.
Quote:
I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.

2. Flemingovia, should he be elected to any office, shall take the following oath:

I, Flemingova, do hereby swear that during my term as [government position or positions] i will uphold the ideals of Flemingovianism.

Simple and elegant.
 
Ummmm.... I am thinking this is not fair,(if ur not joking).
In this manner, it seems that you r considering yourself more "special" and "important" than everyone else. Even though I don't think it's illegal but its: un-democratic and maybe, un-constitutional.
 
In what way is this not fair? I am not precluding others from making similar amendments, should they wish.

I DO consider myself more special and important than everyone else. It's part of being a god.
 
:rofl: :clap:

Now that is the way to reform The North Pacific.

It's kind of gross but if #tnp are for it I will certainly vote for it.

Remember, it's not delusions of grandeur if your name is Flemingovia.

Isn't this vaguely pseudoantidisestablishmentarianist?
 
I'm pretty sure this would constitute a violation of the Bill of Rights if enacted into law and therefore invalid, not that it is likely to be enacted into law.
 
I do not see how this amendment, in and of itself, is a violation of the ill of rights, since it affects only me. It would be a violation of the bill of rights only if,in office, I violated the bill of rights.

I have never deceived tnp. When standing for election I have always laid out my stall clearly as to what I would do. Sometimes the people back that, sometimes they do not. Sometimes officialdom does not trust or permit the people to make that choice.

In other words, if this passes and people do not want what I offer, at least they will be able to make that choice.
 
I oppose such a motion. We saw the same thing happen when te flemingovian constitution was up for vote. I think this deserves to be properly debated.

When people are asked to consider something radically new and fresh, they often need a bit of time to get used to the idea. If they are not given that time they vote for the tired old status quo, and nothing changes.
 
Bill of Rights:
No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
Eluvatar:
Bill of Rights:
No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yep. Don't see how this amendment breaks that clause. OF course, like any elected official my conduct in office might break it. If so, I would be subject to recall like any other official.
 
flemingovia:
Eluvatar:
Bill of Rights:
No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yep. Don't see how this amendment breaks that clause. OF course, like any elected official my conduct in office might break it. If so, I would be subject to recall like any other official.
Click to expand...
flemingovia:
SECTION 4.2.5

CURRENT EDIT:

5. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.

NEW VERSION

5. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates, except Flemingovia, may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.
Click to expand...
Although this proposed language may give fair treatment, unfortunately I believe that it would not give equal treatment.
:flemingovia2:
 
flemingovia:
I oppose such a motion. We saw the same thing happen when te flemingovian constitution was up for vote. I think this deserves to be properly debated.

When people are asked to consider something radically new and fresh, they often need a bit of time to get used to the idea. If they are not given that time they vote for the tired old status quo, and nothing changes.
Click to expand...
Then I withdraw my motion and fully support this urgently needed reform.
 
On a procedural note, this proposal will not move to a vote unless it is phrased in clear legislative language, and placed in a [nocode]
[/nocode] box. "Current edit:" and "New Version:" are not sufficiently clear. Something on the order of "X Clause of the Legal Code will be replaced with the following:" or similar would be appropriate.
Click to expand...
 
A proposal on behalf Regional Assemblyman Flemingovia:
The clause 5 of section 4.2 of the legal code, which currently reads as follows:
Legal Code Section 4.2:
5. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.
Click to expand...
be amended to read as follows:
New Section 4.2:
5. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates, except Flemingovia, may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.
Click to expand...
and the clause 1 of Section 4.1 of the legal code, which currently reads as follows:
Legal Code Section 4.1:
1. All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.
Quote:
I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...
be replaced with the following clause: (additions in blue)
New Section 4.1:
1. All government officials except Flemingovia will take the following Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.
Quote:
I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...
and the clauses 2 and 3 of section 4.1 the legal code, which currently read as follows:
Legal Code Section 4.1:
2. All government officials will be required to take the Oath of Office within one week of the certification of election results by the Election Commissioner, or if appointed, within one week of their appointment being announced. The taking of the Oath constitutes assumption of the office. Failure to post the oath within the allotted time will result in the office being considered vacant, to be filled in accordance with all laws governing elections or appointments, as is appropriate for the office in question.
3. This Oath will be binding and violations are grounds for a recall.
Click to expand...
remain as they are, for now, but have the following clause added after them:
New Section 4.1:
4. Flemingovia, should he be elected to any office, shall take the following oath:

I, Flemingovia, do hereby swear that during my term as [government position or positions] I will uphold the ideals of Flemingovianism.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Flem - does this version match what you intend to amend?

Should clause 3 also be amended to cover clause 4, or would it be already covered, or need not be covered?
 
Eluvatar:
Again, this is a facially unconstitutional proposal.

It is unconstitutional to make some person above a law.
Click to expand...
1. Does this make somebody above a law?

2. How is it unconstitutional to make somebody above a law?

3. Could the unconstitutionality be resolved by an omnibus?
 
Eluvatar:
Again, this is a facially unconstitutional proposal.

It is unconstitutional to make some person above a law.
Click to expand...
Show me in the constitution where it says that?

The fact that you wish it to be so does not make it so.
 
There's something wrong with the obligatory oath though, it should say swear or affirm not just swear. People who are incapable of swearing an oath should be able to make an affirmation to the same effect.

At least that's the way I understood it. I'm surprised nobody mentioned this before.
 
A proposal on behalf Regional Assemblyman Flemingovia:
The clause 5 of section 4.2 of the legal code, which currently reads as follows:
Legal Code Section 4.2:
5. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.
Click to expand...
be amended to read as follows:
New Section 4.2:
5. "Candidates" are those citizens who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates, except Flemingovia, may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.
Click to expand...
and the clause 1 of Section 4.1 of the legal code, which currently reads as follows:
Legal Code Section 4.1:
1. All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.
Quote:
I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...
be replaced with the following clause: (additions in blue)
New Section 4.1:
1. All government officials except Flemingovia will take the following Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.
Quote:
I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...
and the clauses 2 and 3 of section 4.1 the legal code, which currently read as follows:
Legal Code Section 4.1:
2. All government officials will be required to take the Oath of Office within one week of the certification of election results by the Election Commissioner, or if appointed, within one week of their appointment being announced. The taking of the Oath constitutes assumption of the office. Failure to post the oath within the allotted time will result in the office being considered vacant, to be filled in accordance with all laws governing elections or appointments, as is appropriate for the office in question.
3. This Oath will be binding and violations are grounds for a recall.
Click to expand...
remain as they are, for now, but have the following clause added after them:
New Section 4.1:
4. Flemingovia, should he be elected to any office, shall take the following oath:

I, Flemingovia, do hereby swear that during my term as [government position or positions] I will uphold the ideals of Flemingovianism.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Just to give you a heads up, Flem, although I edited it, I won't actually be voting for this (yet) due to:

1. It's not clear if #tnp fully supports it.
2. Eluvatar has not answered the questions about constitutionality.

I'm not trying to block the motion, I'm just letting you know.
 
Chas, your reply actually rather disturbed me.

#tnp is an open channel. While many of the members are RA members in TNP, many are not, and are not even from this region. If your determinant as to whether you support a motion or not is not the debate in the RA but the opinion of #tnp, then i am concerned.

Also, Elu has suggested that this may not be constitutional, but he has failed to make his case.

If this passes, then the will of TNP still has to be exercised in an election to vote me in as delegate or to some other position. In this I am simply trying to do what people urged me to do - improve the law rather than complaining about the law.
 
Excuse me, we're misunderstanding each other, or you're just misrepresenting me?

Normally when I edit a proposal I would vote for it, I was merely pointing out that I'm not voting for this one.

Do you want to discuss the reasoning or not?

Popular support is not always the determinant, by no means, but this proposal is a bit different.

If you had the hearts and minds of everyone ready to abandon the principle of equality and push forward into flemstitution territory, then in that case I would probably support it, because it's the will of the people and also it's being implemented by legal means. The #tnp channel is one indicator of the public mood. I don't go there any more because I find it a difficult environment.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't vote against what the channel think - I have done and I probably will again. I'd prefer to keep equality, but we are all equally entitled to make up our own minds.
 
Chasmanthe:
The #tnp channel is one indicator of the public mood.
Click to expand...
I've always found that the best indicator of the public mood is a vote. By saying you will support whatever the community as a whole thinks is essentially to abstain, abdicating your personal stake in the outcome.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Chasmanthe:
The #tnp channel is one indicator of the public mood.
Click to expand...
I've always found that the best indicator of the public mood is a vote. By saying you will support whatever the community as a whole thinks is essentially to abstain, abdicating your personal stake in the outcome.
Click to expand...
Yeah.

The will of the RA is expressed by a vote, and that's right. But not everybody in the community is in the RA and not everybody wants to be in it, and those who are in it doesn't always want to vote. So you can get an alternative indication of the public mood from the channel since the overlap with the RA is not exact.

If people are crying out for Flem 24/7 then I'm not saying it's the best indicator but it is something that can be taken into account.

Yes, people should vote on what they think themselves.
 
If people don't want to join the RA yet they hang out on IRC, then I don't think they really deserve that much of a voice in TNP affairs. They are around often enough and technically competent enough to participate on this forum. Most of them *do* participate on other forums.
 
Former English Colony:
If people don't want to join the RA yet they hang out on IRC, then I don't think they really deserve that much of a voice in TNP affairs. They are around often enough and technically competent enough to participate on this forum. Most of them *do* participate on other forums.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top