Use of lists in the legal code

Chasmanthe

Chasmanthe

TNPer
Grosseschnauzer:
I still think further discussion is warranted over the device of having lists in the Legal Code, whose actual items are not formally adopted as law.
Click to expand...
I think the way it should work is you have the list contained within a clause in the legal code. Every time the regional assembly passes a treaty or any vote which causes that list to change, the regional assembly must also undertake to update that list.

The way it works now is the speaker's office updates it, which is convenient, I think it does work, but it puts on them what is really the RA's job.
 
The thing is treaties, as signed by the Delegate, are complete documents in and of themselves, as would a resolution recognizing a state of war be (such as this). Additionally, treaties, as agreements proposed by the Delegate are not subject to Veto. Neither are recognitions of a state of war (instead they are subject to a 3/5 majority). Of course, the only (successful) example of such a resolution to date was requested by the Delegate of the day.

The intent of the Legal Code, as written, is to allow treaties and resolutions deeming a state of war to exist to be self-executing, and not require an implementation bill which is a law.

We could of course change the language from saying that the Speaker will update the clause, to simply proclaim that the clause will be / must be updated. I would consider whether that could lead to undesirable ambiguity before making such a change, however.
 
Apologies for any misunderstandings or lack of context as I'm coming to this discussion late.

Why can't the legal code simply have a general categorical statement recognizing treaties, declarations of war, etc.? Or do we have this already?
 
The goal is to reduce the amount of extra reading required - rather than one document saying "TNP can do treaties" and then having to trawl through an archive to find what the treaties are, we have "TNP can do treaties" and "TNP's allies are X, Y, and Z", and "The Speaker shall update the list as appropriate."

I really don't see why this is at all a problem. It's a list, legally defined as updatable by the Speaker when the RA passes legislation fitting a certain subcategory. It's pretty straightforward.
 
The problem with lists in the Legal Code as it is currently being done is this: It is changing the Legal Code in a manner not authorized in the Constitution.

Under the Constitution as it currently stands, all changes in the Legal Code must be adopted as laws by the Regional Assembly and presented to the Delegate for their approval or veto. So the use of that procedure does not conform to the express language in the Constitution.

The Constitution also grants rule-making powers to each body created in the Constitution and Legal Code. The constitutional way of having such lists then is the adoption of a rule, but in the cases of the espionage amendment and the list of treaties, it is not clear to me if it should be a rule of the Regional Assembly or of the Delegate. That would avoid the conflict with the current language of the Constitution.

Otherwise, we will need to amend the Constitution to authorize such housekeeping changes to be inserted in the Legal Code without the adoption of a law. This is also where the issue of housekeeping corrections to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Legal Code comes in, as the easiest way to overcome the recent Court decision is to adopt a process in the text of the Constitution.

I have no strong preference between these two options to fix the current process being followed, other than it does need to be fixed with one option or the other.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The problem with lists in the Legal Code as it is currently being done is this: It is changing the Legal Code in a manner not authorized in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Foolish TNPers, when will you learn not to try to do things you are not permitted to do?

Learn to submit. Be docile. Do not attempt change. Know your place.
 
I see absolutely nothing wrong with use of lists as is. I believe trying to codify the legality of lists is just legislating for the sake of legislating.
 
I think it should be clear that the lists are legally being altered by the resolutions or treaties which they reflect.
 
I agree with Eluvatar. (what.)

All changes to the Legal Code are being made with RA approval - the RA has pre-approved future changes, and any instance of future change will be preceded by an RA vote.

I would agree about the questionable legality if not for the final clause, authorizing the Speaker to maintain the lists in an up-to-date form.
 
SillyString, it would appear that the Court has already ruled against that theory when it was offered in connection with the minor errors clause of the Legal Code:

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8088174&t=7011417

So if the Espionage Amendment passes, it looks as if it will have to go to the Court for it to clarify whether so-called pre-approval provisions in the Legal Code are constitutional when the minor corrections procedure wasn't.
 
If you want to take it to the court, there's already a list clause you can do so with. And no, if this passes it does not have to go to court.

Moreover, the "minor errors" issue is fundamentally different from an updating list. The former relies on the personal judgement of the individual making the correction - and opens up the possibility to fundamentally change the interpretation of the clause. Lists, however, are only updated after the RA has undertaken a relevant vote, and are not subject to Speaker discretion - the Speaker cannot simply decide we are allied to a random region and add that in to the legal code.
 
flemingovia:
Grosseschnauzer:
The problem with lists in the Legal Code as it is currently being done is this: It is changing the Legal Code in a manner not authorized in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Foolish TNPers, when will you learn not to try to do things you are not permitted to do?

Learn to submit. Be docile. Do not attempt change. Know your place.
Click to expand...
Now, now, Grosse has a point. We have a Constitution and a legal code to establish rules by which we all agree to abide. If you don't like a law (and I am leaning to my ee-vile rebellious nature) you challenge the law by breaking the law and let the Court suss it out according to the Constutution (which, in TNP is way liberal and not libertarian enough. :P ).

That said, if a law references a list of treaties, etc., that may require modification from time to time with or without legislative action, an insertion of a list is merely a footnote if it is just a list of treaties.
 
SillyString:
The goal is to reduce the amount of extra reading required - rather than one document saying "TNP can do treaties" and then having to trawl through an archive to find what the treaties are, we have "TNP can do treaties" and "TNP's allies are X, Y, and Z", and "The Speaker shall update the list as appropriate."

I really don't see why this is at all a problem. It's a list, legally defined as updatable by the Speaker when the RA passes legislation fitting a certain subcategory. It's pretty straightforward.
Click to expand...
If the objective is just the usability of the legal documents, perhaps we can use links or footnotes or some other non-legally-binding way of annotating the official documents. That just seems a lot more simple, and it's something that can be done without additional legislation.
 
I'm not sure how it's simpler, or requires less legislation - we already have lists, and I can't imagine cases of adding new ones without legislation already being required. It'd take more to remove the existing ones than to just keep them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top