- Discord
- COE#7110
Just cause you didn't quote it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All government officials still have to be RA members, and the second clause you quoted doesn't exempt SC members from that.punk d:
Eluvatar
- Thread starter Sanctaria
- Start date
Chasmanthe
TNPer
I still think the VD should have followed our special chapter on Security Council Law, which tells how to remove members, rather than removing a member by the interpretation of the constitution.Crushing Our Enemies:
I feel uncomfortable with having helped rewrite a law which is now being deemed unconstitutional.
First clause of chapter 5:
1. Any laws regulating the activities of the Security Council must be listed in this chapter.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- Discord
- sanctaria
That clause doesn't detail on how the VD removes members, it says how they suspend members. Eluvatar wasn't suspended, because he still continues to meet those requirements, he was removed because government officials have to be RA members, and he never applied for an exemption to get around that fact.
I really don't wish to be snide or arrogant or anything like that, but I really do feel the need to point out there is a difference between suspension and removal.
I really don't wish to be snide or arrogant or anything like that, but I really do feel the need to point out there is a difference between suspension and removal.
Chasmanthe
TNPer
I don't think you were, it's okSanctaria:
Yes there's a difference.
But it does tell you about removal in clauses 12 and 15.
Actually, I'd say since his RA membership lapsed and he did not have an exemption to RA membership extant at the time of the lapse therefor his SC membership is void because SC members are required to maintain RA membership.
Get to the same point, but the route traveled is a little different.
I'm not the expert on the suspend portion of the law to grab the entirety of the context. But Elu didn't have an exemption so all that one can go by is the SC membership requirements, imo.
Get to the same point, but the route traveled is a little different.
I'm not the expert on the suspend portion of the law to grab the entirety of the context. But Elu didn't have an exemption so all that one can go by is the SC membership requirements, imo.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
That is exactly what Sanctaria said in the OP >_>!
Isn't it? I'm confused about what's different there. >_>!
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Regardless of whether it was a suspension or a removal, Elu's rights under Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights were violated when he was not given notice, and an opportunity to be heard as the Bill of Rights demands:
My problem here is that the Court's decision changed the law, after the fact, when Elu relied upon the reasonable belief that his SC membership wouldn't be affected by the lapse of his RA membership. The Court's decision constituted a change after the fact with regards to Elu, and that may have violated the prohibition against denial of equal and fair treatment provision of Clause 9.
I personally think it is inescapable that in this matter, Elu has been denied the protection of Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights, and things need to be reset and done in faithful compliance with the Bill of Rights. In that I would say that a number of officials and bodies have failed their binding obligations.
My problem here is that the Court's decision changed the law, after the fact, when Elu relied upon the reasonable belief that his SC membership wouldn't be affected by the lapse of his RA membership. The Court's decision constituted a change after the fact with regards to Elu, and that may have violated the prohibition against denial of equal and fair treatment provision of Clause 9.
I personally think it is inescapable that in this matter, Elu has been denied the protection of Clause 9 of the Bill of Rights, and things need to be reset and done in faithful compliance with the Bill of Rights. In that I would say that a number of officials and bodies have failed their binding obligations.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Gods you're dense.
- Discord
- COE#7110
I think that since the Court's decision was publicly rendered months in advance of Elu's removal, and Eluvatar himself is did not expect to remain on the SC after being removed from the RA, no Bill of Rights violation has occurred.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Eluvatar is aware. He was informed via Skype and he was surprised that there was even debate surrounding his removal.
taking a gander at the suspension law...i'm actually inclined to agree with Grosse but I also think part of the Legal code is not Constitutional because it contradicts the Constitution.
The bolded section of the Legal Code doesn't mention the exemption of the Constitution and goes further and says, anyone - any RA member that is - not meeting the requirements must be rejected.
But the enforcement part seems to indicate that if someone is out of compliance, i.e. not an RA member, too many/few endorsements, or a reduced influence level the next step appears to be suspension not immediate removal, according to this law. So I'm inclined to agree with Grosse's view that Elu should be suspended first.
The bolded section of the Legal Code doesn't mention the exemption of the Constitution and goes further and says, anyone - any RA member that is - not meeting the requirements must be rejected.
But the enforcement part seems to indicate that if someone is out of compliance, i.e. not an RA member, too many/few endorsements, or a reduced influence level the next step appears to be suspension not immediate removal, according to this law. So I'm inclined to agree with Grosse's view that Elu should be suspended first.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
That would be the case if Eluvatar had dropped in endorsements... or had resigned WA. The constitution is still superior to the legal code:
SC members are government officials. Eluvatar did not maintain RA membership therefore he is removed. I don't understand the issue here. It was applied correctly. It is done.
Article 7. General Provisions:
SC members are government officials. Eluvatar did not maintain RA membership therefore he is removed. I don't understand the issue here. It was applied correctly. It is done.
Allegations of rights violations and other criminal activity belong in the AG's office.Grosseschnauzer:
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
What I suspect some are missing is that the Bill of Rights limits both the Constitution and the Legal Code; and that is my "beef" about Elu's removal from the S.C.
The law governing the S.C., as well as Article 5 of the Constitution apparently were last amended prior to the Court decision in question, and that may be part of the problem that needs to be remedied.
It was always the intent of the group that first developed the S.C. as a concept and the several rounds of revisions in the law related to it, that it be possible for longtime residents of TNP with the high level of influence to serve on the S.C. and be exempted from R.A. membership at the time of admission, or granted thereafter. If the Court's interpretation means a further set of amendments is required in order to remain in keeping with the spirit of that intent, then that is what may need to be done.
The law governing the S.C., as well as Article 5 of the Constitution apparently were last amended prior to the Court decision in question, and that may be part of the problem that needs to be remedied.
It was always the intent of the group that first developed the S.C. as a concept and the several rounds of revisions in the law related to it, that it be possible for longtime residents of TNP with the high level of influence to serve on the S.C. and be exempted from R.A. membership at the time of admission, or granted thereafter. If the Court's interpretation means a further set of amendments is required in order to remain in keeping with the spirit of that intent, then that is what may need to be done.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
You're perfectly free to pass it on there yourself; my goal at the moment is to raise the level of awareness about the demand of the Bill of Rights in this, because I am really bothered bu the lack of attention to its role in our governmental activities.SillyString:Allegations of rights violations and other criminal activity belong in the AG's office.Grosseschnauzer:
You can't ignore the section of the Constitution which exempts SC members from any/all requirements for SC members which includes the RA bit.mcmasterdonia:
It is there, it is not invisible.
I still don't feel that the connotation or denotation of the court ruling suggests that SC members MUST be RA members (meaning the exemption clause was not invalidated by the ruling). Again, if people do feel that way if a non-RA member applies to the SC, we'll be able to test the concept or if a current SC member applies for an exemption, we could test it then as well.
But Grosse, you're the one alleging rights violations and other criminal activity!Grosseschnauzer:You're perfectly free to pass it on there yourself; my goal at the moment is to raise the level of awareness about the demand of the Bill of Rights in this, because I am really bothered bu the lack of attention to its role in our governmental activities.SillyString:Allegations of rights violations and other criminal activity belong in the AG's office.Grosseschnauzer:
I happen to think Sanctaria acted entirely appropriately.Democratic Donkeys
TNPer
I happen to know I don't give a rat's patootie about this, and it doesn't seem as if Eluvatar does either... so... 
I believe Sanc has tried to follow the law as he read it. I don't see any attempts to subvert the Bill of Rights.
If there is evidence to the contrary, I'm not aware of it.
I think the thing wewho are anal are quibbling over is the prior ruling which influenced Sanc's interpretation of the law. Because of that interpretation he didn't follow the protocol within the Legal Code when an SC member becomes disqualified for any of the 3 reasons mentioned in the Legal Code (RA membership, influence, endorsement count).
In my opinion a court case against Sanc would be petty and not in the interests in justice. Instead, someone should bring forth a review request that clarifies if my interpretation or Sanc's interpretation of the law is the correct one. Some have mentioned that they have contacted Elu and he doesn't have an issue with being removed from the SC so I do not believe he feels aggrieved by the process.
If there is evidence to the contrary, I'm not aware of it.
I think the thing we
In my opinion a court case against Sanc would be petty and not in the interests in justice. Instead, someone should bring forth a review request that clarifies if my interpretation or Sanc's interpretation of the law is the correct one. Some have mentioned that they have contacted Elu and he doesn't have an issue with being removed from the SC so I do not believe he feels aggrieved by the process.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
^ The long definition of minutiae.
Chasmanthe
TNPer
I find myself in agreement with Grosse.SillyString:But Grosse, you're the one alleging rights violations and other criminal activity!Grosseschnauzer:You're perfectly free to pass it on there yourself; my goal at the moment is to raise the level of awareness about the demand of the Bill of Rights in this, because I am really bothered bu the lack of attention to its role in our governmental activities.SillyString:Allegations of rights violations and other criminal activity belong in the AG's office.Grosseschnauzer:
I also find myself guilty in writing an imperfect SC bill.
Grosse, I propose we make a project on this:
1. Identify and prioritize the possible issues
2. Draft new legislation and file court reviews if necessary
3. Implement amendments through the Regional Assembly
I'm aware your hours are currently limited but I do think it's worth working on gradually, and taking a consultative approach.
Correcting our laws has to take precedence over drawing attention to possible governmental impropriety.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Offer accepted.Chasmanthe:I find myself in agreement with Grosse.SillyString:But Grosse, you're the one alleging rights violations and other criminal activity!Grosseschnauzer:You're perfectly free to pass it on there yourself; my goal at the moment is to raise the level of awareness about the demand of the Bill of Rights in this, because I am really bothered bu the lack of attention to its role in our governmental activities.SillyString:Allegations of rights violations and other criminal activity belong in the AG's office.Grosseschnauzer:
I also find myself guilty in writing an imperfect SC bill.
Grosse, I propose we make a project on this:
1. Identify and prioritize the possible issues
2. Draft new legislation and file court reviews if necessary
3. Implement amendments through the Regional Assembly
I'm aware your hours are currently limited but I do think it's worth working on gradually, and taking a consultative approach.
Correcting our laws has to take precedence over drawing attention to possible governmental impropriety.
There were assumptions implicit in the gradual development of the laws governing the Security Council that were impacted by the one Court decision, and we also need to take a fresh look at the use of the SPDR with the in-game change that has just been implemented.
I wasn't a fan of Elu's proposal to adopt that particular change, but it was under discussion when I started my leave of absence. And as things have developed, we're going to have to look at how that impacts that element of SC eligibility, and what might be done to work around the time limit that's been implemented by the game mods.
But the SC law and article 5 of the Constitution is a good place to start.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Gross, unless I'm wrong, and I'm not, you were the one who wanted Enif removed from the Security Council last year because he lost his membership in the RA.
I find your objections to removing Elu, who was removed for the same reason as Enif, to be both hypocritical and ironic.
I find your objections to removing Elu, who was removed for the same reason as Enif, to be both hypocritical and ironic.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
As usual, the preceding poster's comments are irrelevant.
*whispers* da wolf and da big dog- dey don't get along so well.
I was AWOL a few times and upon my return I had to reapply to everything. It's no big deal. Actually, it's trivial. If a player is not available to help the region during a coup, they are of little use to the SC.
I was AWOL a few times and upon my return I had to reapply to everything. It's no big deal. Actually, it's trivial. If a player is not available to help the region during a coup, they are of little use to the SC.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
The fact that it also requires 2/3rd majority vote by the Regional Assembly and relates to the admittance process for SC members should also not be ignored.punk d:
Eluvatar did not at any stage receive that exemption from the regional assembly before he was admitted to the SC. I've spoken to him on Skype about this, he is surprised that there is even argument. The law is very clear. Not in the RA and you don't hold an exemption from RA membership, you're removed.
I can understand some concerns about the bill of rights, but I don't understand your issue with how this was processed based on the exemption possibly for SC members. The only member that has received an exemption from RA membership was Former English Colony as far as I can remember.
We certainly need to deal with the ruling about Government officials and I welcome the attempts by Chasmanthe to address this issue
I second this question. How is what BW said in any way irrelevant?Ash:
Chasmanthe
TNPer
because it's ad hominemSillyString:
the hypocrisy of an individual is not where we should be going with the discussion
I think most of us would agree that the law must be applied equally to each nation, whether her name is Enif or Eluvatar, and that principle is not in question.
The relevant thing is to clarify what the law should be and how it should be followed, and then to uphold the absolute equality of each nation before the law.
It's perfectly relevant to point out where someone's current position is completely the opposite of their previous position, and to question why this is so. Doing so allows others to better their own understanding, and come to a more informed decision.
Is there a compelling difference between the situations Enif and Elu found themselves in, such that the former should have been removed and the latter should not have been? If so, knowing the crucial difference in what appears to be an identical situation of losing RA membership is important.
Has Grosse devoted some time to internal reflection and critical analysis, and determined his previous support for removing Enif was misplaced? If so, knowing what changed his mind might help others come to the same conclusion.
Does Grosse simply like Elu more than Enif? If so, that would be a reason to weight his words more lightly, and examine them more carefully, lest we fall into the trap of favoritism or bias.
One's consistency over time directly relates to the logical merit others can ascribe to the stances one takes. Pointing out inconsistencies and asking for clarification is a way of determining that logical merit.
Is there a compelling difference between the situations Enif and Elu found themselves in, such that the former should have been removed and the latter should not have been? If so, knowing the crucial difference in what appears to be an identical situation of losing RA membership is important.
Has Grosse devoted some time to internal reflection and critical analysis, and determined his previous support for removing Enif was misplaced? If so, knowing what changed his mind might help others come to the same conclusion.
Does Grosse simply like Elu more than Enif? If so, that would be a reason to weight his words more lightly, and examine them more carefully, lest we fall into the trap of favoritism or bias.
One's consistency over time directly relates to the logical merit others can ascribe to the stances one takes. Pointing out inconsistencies and asking for clarification is a way of determining that logical merit.