Oath Reform Bill

Crushing Our Enemies

Crushing Our Enemies

TNPer
-
-
Discord
COE#7110
I propose the following bill for the Assembly's consideration:
The Oath Reform Bill:
1. Legal Code Chapter 6 Clause 4 is amended to read as follows:
4. Applicants must provide the name of their TNP Nation and WA Nation (if they control one) and swear an oath, as follows:
I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This oath has numerous advantages over the current version. Rather than immediately exposing new members to custom BBcodes they may be unfamiliar with (particularly as, for some, this may be their first visit to a forum), it simply requires nations to provide the names of their TNP nation and WA nation, and leaves implementation up to the Speaker. Additionally, it no longer requires the applicant to fill in their forum name in the oath - that is a useless exercise since they are presumably using their forum account to post it, and their name is readily visible. The only reason I left in a spot for them to fill in their TNP nation is so that we have a statement from them under oath that they are the owner of that nation. Also, the wording of the sentence beginning "I pledge loyalty..." is made more parallel (three noun phrases instead of one noun phrase and two infinitives.) The only substantive change to the oath is in the sentence beginning "I understand that if I break..." Previously, that sentence read "I may immediately lose my voting privileges, permanently." It came to my attention earlier in my term that the immediate loss of voting privileges for oath violations is not legally possible, and may be unconstitutional. Thus, I deleted that word and restructured the sentence to resolve that ambiguity.

A full account of the changes made is available in the spoiler below. Comments? Suggestions?

4. Applicants must provide the name of their TNP Nation and WA Nation (if they control one) and swear an oath, as follows:
Code: 
[nation]TNP Nation[/nation]
[nation]WA Nation[/nation]
I, [forum user name], the leader of The North Pacific nation of (your TNP nation's name)[INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to the regionThe North Pacific, to abide by itsobedience to her laws, and responsible actionto act as a responsible member of itsher society. I pledge to only register one Nnation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may immediatelypermanently lose my voting privileges, permanently. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This looks like a fairly reasonable clean-up of the oath that also brings it in line with constitutional standards. I support this.
 
No major legal issues, though given the reworked wording, I suspect we'll want to ask all RA members to re-swear under a new oath. Perhaps some provision regarding timeframe for that might be necessary/appropriate?
 
I don't think that's necessary. When current members joined the RA, a different oath was legally required. Changes to the oath should only apply to future members, otherwise it's ex post facto, isn't it?

EDIT: Additionally, the law says "Applicants" shall swear the oath, not all members of the RA.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I don't think that's necessary. When current members joined the RA, a different oath was legally required. Changes to the oath should only apply to future members, otherwise it's ex post facto, isn't it?

EDIT: Additionally, the law says "Applicants" shall swear the oath, not all members of the RA.
Click to expand...
Works for me.
 
I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
Click to expand...

What I highlighted in red is vague and subjective. Who gets to determine what is 'responsible action'? Someone could interpret "responsible action as a member of her society" and not criticizing the government or anything else. It is not a necessary phrase and to vague to the point of being a perfect political tool in the wrong hands.

That's just my libertarian bent.
 
Before, it said "to act as a responsible member of it's society" so I fail to see how at the very least, this is not a grammatical improvement. Also, I doubt that phrase could ever be used to prosecute someone, because of its subjective nature, and because of the legal grey area that is oath violations...
 
Even if the oath were clarified, there's actually a very clear legal standard for responsibility, through reasonableness doctrine. It wouldn't present a problem. As an example, if I as AG chose to question and challenge every single government action, just because I could, that would be *irresponsible*, objectively. Reasonableness, legally, is an objective standard, not subjective, so it wouldn't be a problem.

tl;dr Roman is wrong, and even when the legal grey area around Oath violations is clarified, it won't be open to abuse because legal doctrine won't permit it.
 
[me]does his best Jeff Goldblum impression from Jurassic Park

"Uhhh, how do you know all the regions are female? Do you go out and look up all of their skirts?"

Otherwise it's a nice oath. :)
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Countries and ships are traditionally referred to using female pronouns. It's a logical extension to apply that custom to regions.

EDIT: In other words...TRADITION!
Click to expand...
Leave the naval traditions to the navy then, perhaps if TNP ever gets ships then we can adhere to a real life tradition. Countries are not all referred to as she or her and it's stupid regardless. The original oath referred to the region as it, which is the proper form for something that is gender and sex neutral. Why change it just because it sounds more traditional? It does not lend any gravitas.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
In the interest of speedily passing a sensible, uncontroversial and relatively minor bill, I beg to move this bill to vote
Click to expand...
I second this (if it was indeed a motion to vote)
 
I find myself agreeing with DD but particularly with Elu. I also don't feel too strongly about it though, if people are hugely in favour of the new version, so be it.
 
Shouldn't there be a way for someone to appeal to have their voting privileges restored? Why does this loss have to be permanent?

(n00b to TNP law, sorry)
 
The loss is not necessarily permanent, it is dependent upon why they were removed, for example being removed due to an individual no longer having a TNP nation essentially only lasts until they restore it and reapply, however the court can suspend voting rights for defined amounts of time or permanently and there is no right to appeal for reasons of which I am unsure
 
DD: it's not a naval tradition. It's a linguistic custom. In other words, it's a part of English that some no longer observe, but is still (ostensibly, at least) grammatically proper.
 
Karpathos:
Zyvetskistaahn:
In the interest of speedily passing a sensible, uncontroversial and relatively minor bill, I beg to move this bill to vote
Click to expand...
I second this (if it was indeed a motion to vote)
Click to expand...
Seeing a motion to vote and a second, this will move to a vote within a day or two.
 
Gaspo:
Roman is wrong, and even when the legal grey area around Oath violations is clarified, it won't be open to abuse because legal doctrine won't permit it.
Click to expand...
Oh, my. You place a lot of faith in the subjectivity of 'legal doctrine'.

I just love faith in legal doctrine inspired by legal doctrine. :P


Then again, if it goes to a vote, I just might vote for it. You know, just to see what happens. :lol:
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Countries and ships are traditionally referred to using female pronouns. It's a logical extension to apply that custom to regions.

EDIT: In other words...TRADITION!
Click to expand...
Leave the naval traditions to the navy then, perhaps if TNP ever gets ships then we can adhere to a real life tradition. Countries are not all referred to as she or her and it's stupid regardless. The original oath referred to the region as it, which is the proper form for something that is gender and sex neutral. Why change it just because it sounds more traditional? It does not lend any gravitas.
Click to expand...
Calling the region "it" does not work for me. But gender specific language does not work either. I suggest using the gender-neutral Spivak pronoun "Ey/Em/Eir." I have therefore redrafted the oath:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to eir laws, and responsible action as a member of eir society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific
 
Just a note for COE - in the past if the speaker has brought a bill, the deputy speaker has handled it. Whether you want to do this, however, is up to you.
 
Obviously, I haven't handed this off to the deputy speaker. I don't see any conflict of interest in introducing a bill and then administering the vote. It's not like I'm tallying the votes in secret, and could monkey with the results - the vote is public, and if I mis-administer the vote, anyone could see it, and recall me. The entire process is transparent.
 
Fair enough. You may also want to illustrate the changes in the vote thread so that people are easily aware of what is different in your proposed change but again, this is up to you.
 
I haven't done that with any other bill that's been proposed. I wouldn't want to deviate from any of my established habits with this bill, lest it be seen as abuse of office.

EDIT: Also, the changes are spoiler'd in the OP of this thread, which is linked to in the OP of the voting thread. If people are too lazy to read the debate, they don't deserve to know what's different.
 
Romanoffia:
I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
Click to expand...
What I highlighted in red is vague and subjective. Who gets to determine what is 'responsible action'? Someone could interpret "responsible action as a member of her society" and not criticizing the government or anything else. It is not a necessary phrase and to vague to the point of being a perfect political tool in the wrong hands.

That's just my libertarian bent.
Click to expand...
Gaspo:
Even if the oath were clarified, there's actually a very clear legal standard for responsibility, through reasonableness doctrine. It wouldn't present a problem. As an example, if I as AG chose to question and challenge every single government action, just because I could, that would be *irresponsible*, objectively. Reasonableness, legally, is an objective standard, not subjective, so it wouldn't be a problem.

tl;dr Roman is wrong, and even when the legal grey area around Oath violations is clarified, it won't be open to abuse because legal doctrine won't permit it.
Click to expand...
Romanoffia:
Gaspo:
Roman is wrong, and even when the legal grey area around Oath violations is clarified, it won't be open to abuse because legal doctrine won't permit it.
Click to expand...
Oh, my. You place a lot of faith in the subjectivity of 'legal doctrine'.

I just love faith in legal doctrine inspired by legal doctrine. :P

Then again, if it goes to a vote, I just might vote for it. You know, just to see what happens. :lol:
Click to expand...
I have voted for this bill for the same reason as Romanoffia.
I am not a trial lawyer so maybe my opinion doesn't count, but I think reasonableness cannot be measured and evaluated objectively.
(Of course, my personal POV is from a scientific standpoint as opposed to a legal one)
Why was this portion in the original oath is the question we should have asked ourselves, to decide if it should have been left in or taken out. Oh well, too late.
 
I would just like to back up my argument with a quick statistic: of the RA members who were admitted in the last month, about 28% had to post the oath more than once. In my opinion, that's pretty ridiculous. The oath really needs to be more intuitive, and user-friendly. That has always been the main objective of this bill, and that's why it ought to pass.

***I've got my "Speaker Hat" off for this post; only speaking as a fellow member of the assembly***
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top