Motion to Overturn a Previous RA Rejection

Treize_Dreizehn

Treize_Dreizehn

TNPer
So first of all I'm incredibly aware at the recursive nature of this request. Still. There have been a number of conversations I've held in the last few months about "how I went about" getting back into the RA. Section 2.8 of the legal code outlines a method to overturn previous rejections.

I still stand beside my current interpretation of the law(especially as the language is unclear). However... I'd prefer it if I could not have the court case hanging over my head for forever. Not to mention the discomfort people probably feel having an active member of the RA in limbo. So.

Section 2.8 of the legal code says this:
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
Click to expand...

I hereby propose to overturn the previous rejection of Treize Dreizehn for membership in the Regional Assembly by the Vice Delegate Sanctaria.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
So first of all I'm incredibly aware at the recursive nature of this request. Still. There have been a number of conversations I've held in the last few months about "how I went about" getting back into the RA. Section 2.8 of the legal code outlines a method to overturn previous rejections.

I still stand beside my current interpretation of the law(especially as the language is unclear). However... I'd prefer it if I could not have the court case hanging over my head for forever. Not to mention the discomfort people probably feel having an active member of the RA in limbo. So.

Section 2.8 of the legal code says this:
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
Click to expand...

I hereby propose to overturn the previous rejection of Treize Dreizehn for membership in the Regional Assembly by the Vice Delegate Sanctaria.
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused. You are presently in the RA. Wouldn't that by default overturned Sanc's previous rejection of your app?

If not, then aren't you in the RA illegally if we must overturn a prior rejection?
 
punk d:
Treize_Dreizehn:
So first of all I'm incredibly aware at the recursive nature of this request. Still. There have been a number of conversations I've held in the last few months about "how I went about" getting back into the RA. Section 2.8 of the legal code outlines a method to overturn previous rejections.

I still stand beside my current interpretation of the law(especially as the language is unclear). However... I'd prefer it if I could not have the court case hanging over my head for forever. Not to mention the discomfort people probably feel having an active member of the RA in limbo. So.

Section 2.8 of the legal code says this:
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
Click to expand...

I hereby propose to overturn the previous rejection of Treize Dreizehn for membership in the Regional Assembly by the Vice Delegate Sanctaria.
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused. You are presently in the RA. Wouldn't that by default overturned Sanc's previous rejection of your app?

If not, then aren't you in the RA illegally if we must overturn a prior rejection?
Click to expand...
Actually, as I see it, a new security check was made. And given that the law says the Speaker must accept applications with a passed security check that pass other criteria, I am certainly not in the RA illegally.

However, the other vote to sustain my rejection is still on record, despite it having no binding affect at the moment(and this presupposes the Courts will rule as such). I am motioning to have that previous rejection overturned by the RA itself.

The old rejection doesn't apply, but it still exists. Section 2.8 does not say that this is the only method by which a RA rejection can be overturned, however it is among the methods. And I'm trying to put this to a vote of the RA and put the issue to a final rest.
 
Based upon that interpretation, I believe you are in the RA illegally.

If you were rejected and the RA sustained that rejection - as you say - then you have no business being in the RA at all. What's the point of rejecting an RA applicant if that rejection can be overturned by a subsequent VD.

I'm going to look into this. Nothing against you, I don't see you as a security risk, but rejecting applicants should be removed altogether from our laws if they have no effect.

Unfortunately, my point remains. If we must overturn a prior motion that rejected you, then you are presently in the RA illegally. If you are here legally, then no overturn is necessary since you are in the RA subsequent to the motion that kept you out.

Both can't be true at the same time.
 
punk d:
If you were rejected and the RA sustained that rejection - as you say - then you have no business being in the RA at all. What's the point of rejecting an RA applicant if that rejection can be overturned by a subsequent VD.

I'm going to look into this. Nothing against you, I don't see you as a security risk, but rejecting applicants should be removed altogether from our laws if they have no effect.
Click to expand...
If we're going to argue that... then the term "security threat" pretty much indicates a temporary state of rejection. Circumstances create security threats... it's not a constant effect for the rest of someone's life. There is essentially no difference between the RA overturning it later and another VD(or even the same VD) doing another "security check". What was true 3 months, 6 months, or a year ago are not going to remain true forever.

And the previous motion that passed was not in fact to reject me, but rather to sustain the VD's decision to do so. It's a slight difference that makes all the difference in the world when we're talking about a future VD(or the same VD)'s power to reverse it.

That said, there is a court case currently ongoing on this topic. So if you'd like you can go there to find out more. This is an entirely different thing. ;)
 
Sorry for the double post.

The Legal Code says this:

7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection.
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
Click to expand...

Treize_Dreizehn's RA app rejection was upheld here: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7115555/3/#new.

This rejection seems to still be in effect here and based upon the OP, TD believes it to be so. If that is the case, then I do not see how TD can continue as a member of the RA since the RA rejected him and has not overturned said rejection. I do not believe I was close to the RA during the second time you applied TD, and am not knowledgeable around your legal argument at that time. Before I ask the court for clarification, has the court already ruled on this? If they have, then the RA app rejection is still - in my opinion - null and void.
 
Found the court case which has languished for 3+ months!

That's ridiculous. Ridiculous that it hasn't been addressed and equally ridiculous that it has been a cloud over your head for months. You're a freaking Asst. AG for goodness sakes.

Again - not your problem that this has been hanging so long, so please don't take this as directed at you, it is a problem that our justices are putting other issues ahead of this one when should they hold the previous rejection is valid, every action you have taken in the subsequent months could be invalidated...

...shaking my head. The priorities of some in this region are appalling.
 
I was not here when Treize was initally blocked by the Previous Vice Delegate, and I am pretty sure I found NationStates after DD reversed that previous decision and the RA voted to let him in.

I would argue those actions made the previous rejection null and void. And The VD reversing and the RA upholding the reversal means Treize is in good standing in the RA.

The procedure that is being talked about was something I got passed in the proposal I picked up that Cormac started, but after he left the RA the proposal went too. I thought it was something worth continued discussion and so I reintroduced it.

The out come was This. The Vice Delegate has to consult with the Security Council on RA applications before accepting them or deigning them a security risk. And also the Clause that the RA may choose to hold a vote to overturn a previously upheld rejection.

The spirit of that was meant when I drafted and discussed, was when a VD rejects someone the RA holds a vote on rather or not to sustain the rejection or let the person in; so it stands to reason if at a later date the RA feels the person is no longer a risk they should be able to hold a vote to reverse the previous upheld decision and let the person in if the applicants circumstances change.

I agree with Treize that circumstances are what make someone a risk or not. And a risk is not forever. If someone changes thier circumstsnces or behavior and their action no longer poses a risk, I feel the VD and RA should be able to reverse a block and allow someone in if they are satisfied with the persons change in circumstance. --- which is what clause 8 was supposed to do, if someone gets blocked for 'X reason" but circumstance changes and 'x reason' is no longer applicable and the RA is okay with the person then joining they may be able to vote to reverse a previous decision in that regard.

I am not sure how it would work retroactive in Treize's case. Nor is it my opinion Clause 8. Should apply in this situation. But I am not the court to intrepret, I just wrote it in there. But I would argue Trieze doesnt need to hold a vote to reverse his previous block because his previoud block was overturned when DD lifted it and allowed him in the RA in the current tenure Treize is now serving in.
 
The point of this vote would be to stop people from snidely commenting that I don't belong here as comes up every once in a while. I do not believe this vote is needed, but some do, and I would really prefer it be settled. If the RA votes to overturn the whole point is moot.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
The procedure that is being talked about was something I got passed in the proposal I picked up that Cormac started, but after he left the RA the proposal went too. I thought it was something worth continued discussion and so I reintroduced it.
Click to expand...
As a contributing author to that amendment:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty.The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security assessment of the applicant. All security assessments will be performed in consultation with the Security Council, and in accordance with all laws of The North Pacific.

I italicized. My intent was to establish some form of accountability with regard to the VD 'security risk' assessments.

But I think punk D's point here is that the original rejection by Sanctaria (and the subsequent upholding of that rejection by the RA) takes precedence here. This needs to be addressed yesterday. TD is assistant AG (not sure how that is impacted), and is up for office in the current election cycle.

*edit* If an amendment was intended to apply retroactively, I think it would have to be stipulated as having that effect. I seriously doubt that would've been agreed to.
 
Not realizing that clause 8 was not in effect at the time of the application certainly changes things and makes it a much more murkier legal discussion.

Does anyone know what was in effect when TD reapplied?
 
punk d:
Not realizing that clause 8 was not in effect at the time of the application certainly changes things and makes it a much more murkier legal discussion.

Does anyone know what was in effect when TD reapplied?
Click to expand...
Didn't any rejected application trigger an RA vote to uphold/overturn? EoN's rejection comes to mind, but that may not go back far enough.
 
Yes, a vote was triggered but today's clause 8 is really essential to what I was saying. I found Zvet's post in the original review request thread and I have been able to convince myself that rejections under that law were forever and not about 10 times since reading it. The prior law will require the court to make some assumptions.

The present law must not apply to TD since it was not in effect at the time of either of his applications. It seems clear now, however, that if someone is rejected they are forever rejected until the RA overturns their motion. Depending on how the court rules with TD that will determine if the RA needs to overturn TD's motion or not.

Either way - it's very unfair that TD would have to live under this cloud for months with no end in sight. Chief Roman has stated that this will be dealt with ASAP and it should. I am definitely quite well aware of snide remarks some may make regarding anything that goes on in this region. Sometimes that's just life, in this case it's completely unfair to TD and the RA have such a cloud lingering in our halls. Having said that, I am hopeful this will be resolved once and for all shortly.
 
punk D:
The present law must not apply to TD since it was not in effect at the time of either of his applications. It seems clear now, however, that if someone is rejected they are forever rejected until the RA overturns their motion. Depending on how the court rules with TD that will determine if the RA needs to overturn TD's motion or not.
Click to expand...

I haven't refreshed my memory about it, but I believe that was the crux of the review request. Whether or not it was the 'applicant' that was rejected, or just the 'application'.

punk D:
Either way - it's very unfair that TD would have to live under this cloud for months with no end in sight. Chief Roman has stated that this will be dealt with ASAP and it should. I am definitely quite well aware of snide remarks some may make regarding anything that goes on in this region. Sometimes that's just life, in this case it's completely unfair to TD and the RA have such a cloud lingering in our halls. Having said that, I am hopeful this will be resolved once and for all shortly.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there.
 
Just to note, I'm fairly certain this vote can be held without the ruling. If the Court rules it is needed, it'll be completed and if not... well it can be ignored/discarded.
 
Even if the clause on overturning a prior sustained rejection wasn't in effect at the time of the RA vote to sustain a rejection, then the creation of a process to overturn a rejection that isn't limited by its language to future rejections would lead to a logical conclusion that the process could be used to overturn a prior rejection that was sustained and in effect when the clause was adopted.
Meaning that an RA vote, from my reading, would be permitted. But let's not hold out hope that logic will prevail with the current philosophy of the current Court. (But I was also here when that legislation was proceeding, and had to speak up to assure that the participation of the SC in the process was done in a way that made sense for the SC. And that is my impression of the reversal provision.)
 
Since this is going to vote, I do not believe TD should be considered a member of the RA.

I will say again that by having this vote means that we, as an RA, must remove the original vote in order to accept TD's subsequent application.

Regardless of wording at the time of TD's second application, the Speaker in holding this vote essentially establishes the fact that the RA rejected TD's app and must overturn it in order for TD to be a member of this body.

That being said, TD is not a member of the RA almost by default.
 
punk d:
That being said, TD is not a member of the RA almost by default.
Click to expand...
I hate to add to the recursive nature of that logic, but if I'm not a RA member the vote itself invalid(since I'm the one who proposed it as a member of the RA). So I would then be a member of the RA again.

I think you're overthinking this.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
punk d:
That being said, TD is not a member of the RA almost by default.
Click to expand...
I hate to add to the recursive nature of that logic, but if I'm not a RA member the vote itself invalid(since I'm the one who proposed it as a member of the RA). So I would then be a member of the RA again.

I think you're overthinking this.
Click to expand...
Not at all...quite the opposite in fact.

If we (the RA) must overturn the motion that upheld your original rejection - you are not a member of the RA.

There's no simpler way to interpret this motion.
 
punk d:
Treize_Dreizehn:
punk d:
That being said, TD is not a member of the RA almost by default.
Click to expand...
I hate to add to the recursive nature of that logic, but if I'm not a RA member the vote itself invalid(since I'm the one who proposed it as a member of the RA). So I would then be a member of the RA again.

I think you're overthinking this.
Click to expand...
Not at all...quite the opposite in fact.

If we (the RA) must overturn the motion that upheld your original rejection - you are not a member of the RA.

There's no simpler way to interpret this motion.
Click to expand...
That's like saying that a resolution condemning someone passed by the US Congress must be repealed before someone can be elected to congress. The VD's decision has already been overturned. I'm moving to overturn the vote that upheld the original decision, as Clause 8 now allows.

Let me be clear: The RA vote was not to deny me membership in the RA. It was to confirm the(now reversed) decision by the VD. Clause 8 was passed after that incident, and makes no allowances for such a situation. I am merely availing myself of it to clear up any misunderstandings. To note, due to the language of the law, one could argue that this vote could be held any number of times, with an overturn being the result every time. A future vote does not supercede the legitimacy of a previous "overturn".
 
Hmm...i think you may be overthinking this now.

Condemning someone and barring someone from being elected are two different things. The RA barred you (via upholding the VD's decision to reject you) from becoming a member of the RA.

This motion has not been overturned.

Somehow you were able to get into the RA later. There's a question before the Court about such a matter right now. Indeed, from a legal standpoint I think we're in limbo regarding your standing and have been since late January. This is not your fault. I think if the law allows anyone could apply, get rejected, apply, get reject, apply, get rejected, etc forever should they so desire.

The question here is whether after the motion to uphold your rejection you had a legal right to reapply before that motion was overturned. I think the previous law is murky on the subject and I don't feel knowledgeable enough to give an opinion.

You said:
I'm moving to overturn the vote that upheld the original decision, as Clause 8 now allows.
Click to expand...

The only implication one can take from this is if we must overturn the original decision, the original decision stands and however you came to be in the RA is not legal. Unless your motion is more of a "symbolic" overturn. The RA can certainly pass symbolic resolutions that have no true legal implications. But, legally speaking, you only overturn something that is currently in force today.

And if that motion is in force, you should not be a member of the RA.
 
Ahh this is where we are getting hung up. I thought I was clear that I see the previous rejection as purely symbolic. There is of course a chance that the courts will rule elsewise, and if so this vote will become more than symbolic. But that's not how I see it, nor how I've argued it for these many months. ;)
 
I want to explain my reasons for voting nay on this motion.

With the legal uncertainty as to whether Treize_Dreizehn is currently and legally in the Regional Assembly, it is unclear that this motion is even appropriate or timely. And since it seems the question has been referred to the Court in some form, I think it is better that the Court be heard from before this motion, or anything similar to it, go to the vote.

For these reasons, I have voted Nay. How I would vote at another time in a different legal environment, is another question I will decide when and if.
 
I voted Nay because Douria couped Osiris, and I think that anyone who's couped a feeder is inherently a security risk. If I was the Vice Delegate when he applied to the RA, I would have denied him as well.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I voted Nay because Douria couped Osiris, and I think that anyone who's couped a feeder is inherently a security risk. If I was the Vice Delegate when he applied to the RA, I would have denied him as well.
Click to expand...
Flattery will get you nowhere. ;)
 
I voted Nay because I don't want the court to continue to skirt this issue.

If I were VD back then, I would not have denied TD. But I'll let any riff-raff* in.

*This does not mean I'm calling TD riff-raff.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
I notice treize voted nay as well?
Click to expand...
I have noticed this as well. I'm firmly of the opinion that the Regional Assembly is empowered to resolve such a matter by legislation such as this without the prior permission of the Court. I would have been inclined to vote for the proposal even though I too would like to see a speedy resolution of the matter before the court. But if Treize Dreizehn sees fit to vote against a proposal which so clearly benefits him personally, then I shall respect that and vote "Nay."

>^,,^<
Alunya
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I voted Nay because Douria couped Osiris, and I think that anyone who's couped a feeder is inherently a security risk. If I was the Vice Delegate when he applied to the RA, I would have denied him as well.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.
 
:yes:

Thank you. I am sorry if I am somewhat of a purist when it comes to my philosophical approach to democracy. I believe that the multitude can mitigate the individual.
 
Ah, so the only security threats are the ones that are completely impossible to detect. Therefore, if you can tell that someone is a security risk, they are not one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top