Does anyone care?

punk d

punk d

TNPer
-
-
I have found myself caring about many things that the mass of RA members seem to not care about. Before I waste energy on something that will not persuade the mass of you, I wanted to pose a question to my fellow RA members.

A review request concerning the RA membership status of TD was ruled upon this week. The court ruled that DD illegally admitted TD to the RA. What's a bit funny is that the court - due to the length of time it took the court to rule upon the issue - did not revoke the RA membership of TD because, "He has been a productive member of the RA"

Question - does the court have the power to call an action illegal and also subvert the relevant law?

I don't believe they do honestly. I believe the court may be overreaching here when it calls DD's admission of TD illegal and leave it at that.

But, does anyone care about this issue? If the answer is no, then I think i'll just stop trying to comment on "the rule of law" issues as it seems like that is a waste of time.
 
I can understand some people are disappointed with the ruling. I myself voted to overturn Douria's rejection and I'm surprised that more people did not back that.

(1) The RA needs to either retry to overturn its rejection,

or,

(2) Call for Douria's resignation. Once he resigns he won't be allowed back in until (1)

The Court was entirely right to place this decision back in the hands of the RA, they need to make up their mind collectively.
 
4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
Click to expand...
There is no power in TNP that has the authority to overrule the court on this matter except the court itself.
 
I'm not sure why you're saying that, COE. I was suggesting the RA to overturn the RA's rejection.

Douria certainly has the power to resign from the RA.

So rather than change the court's mind, I think it would be healthier for persuasion efforts to be directed within the RA.

The court has made its decision and we should respect that.
 
Chas, I was responding to punk's post, not yours. Specifically this part:
punk d:
Question - does the court have the power to call an action illegal and also subvert the relevant law?

I don't believe they do honestly. I believe the court may be overreaching here when it calls DD's admission of TD illegal and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
To rephrase my above post, the court is absolutely allowed to call something illegal and then make exceptions for extraordinary circumstances.
 
Thanks for answering the question, DD.

Chas - the decision was not put back to the RA. In fact, quite the opposite. The court overruled two RA votes that upheld Sanc's original rejection of TD's application. This means, TD no longer has any legal issues to deal with regarding his membership. That's, at least, a positive from the ruling.
 
I have the solution to our problems, people! If we don't like this court, let's make a new one! One where every court decision is voted on by the region! Where guilt is decided by public! Where facts, evidence and argument doesn't!

A People's Court! A Court where we could declare Blue Wolf not delegate due to Orange being better than Blue! A Court where DD wouldn't be censured and imprisoned because his boobs are too big!

We could call it the Court of Public Opinion, and hold it in the My Two Cents Hall.
 
I'd like to stay on topic. Nierr if you want to go with your proposal, please open your own thread.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
There is no power in TNP that has the authority to overrule the court on this matter except the court itself.
Click to expand...
When men and women turn their backs on god, they leave a vacuum. they will then create other gods to fill that vacuum.

we now have gods of our own making. they are the justices, and we call them the court.

Praise be. :worship: :worship: :worship:

To answer PunkD. No. the RA does not care. Sheep do not care.
 
Despite all the hecklers' claims to the contrary, some people in the RA do care. I'm not prepared to throw the Court under the bus though. They've reached a decision, plain and simple. The peanut gallery can debate the merits/failings of that decision til the cows come home. Having said that, I can't reconcile (from a legal standpoint), how TD can legally be an RA member after DD's override of his RA rejection has been ruled illegal. Unless I'm mistaken, the Vice Delegate (in consultation with the Security Council), and Forum admins are responsible for accepting/denying an applicant. The RA can vote to overturn a rejection. If the Court is indeed throwing the ball back into the RA's court, then TD is not an RA member. Sanctaria rejected his application, and the Assembly recently voted against overturning that rejection. No further vote need take place. If there is a legal basis for the Court to overrule an RA vote, and allow a previously rejected applicant to remain in the RA, please enlighten me (with relevant legislation).

Furthermore, The 'good faith' argument has no place in TNP law (imo). Even if he were canonized as a saint during the Court's lengthy deliberations, TD would still be bound by the RA's decision to uphold his rejection.
 
falapatorius:
Unless I'm mistaken, the Vice Delegate (in consultation with the Security Council), and Forum admins are responsible for accepting/denying an applicant.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's the Speaker. Technically speaking, there are ways for people to gain admittance to the RA even after failing an admin or VD security check because of this.
 
Guys - the court has overruled the RA votes, two of them in fact.

That's not conjecture, speculation, or being mean-spirited. That is the truth.

Here's how you can test that truth. The RA just voted to uphold the rejection of TD's admittance. TD is still an RA member.
 
Silly String:
Actually, it's the Speaker. Technically speaking, there are ways for people to gain admittance to the RA even after failing an admin or VD security check because of this.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I thought the Speaker just initiated the process and accepted/rejected based upon the security assessment results. RA admittance after failing the checks doesn't seem kosher, but what is around here.. :unsure:

punk D:
Guys - the court has overruled the RA votes, two of them in fact.
Click to expand...

Not disputing that. Just wondering what legal guidelines were used to get there. :shrug:


* For the sake of clarity, I'll state that I'm not trying to get TD booted from the RA. I think that ship has sailed. I've no inclination to berate the Court either. Just trying to wrap my head around the decision by the Court. I subscribe to the aphorism (naively perhaps): "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." Time will tell if that is the case.
 
I think the biggest implications of this ruling have nothing to do with TD. He's a special case because he was unlucky enough to be the guinea pig in this legal dilemma. I think that's why the courts were lenient on the issue of his membership.

The real effect of the ruling is this: the VD cannot admit an applicant to the RA who has failed a previous VD security check, unless the RA overrules that decision. That will outlast Douria's membership, and indeed, the collective memory of this event.

EDIT: In other words, TD's membership is small potatoes, and has little to no future legal implications. He was made an exception of.
 
I think you underestimate the collective memory of the regional assembly.

Although the Justices may feel that they have done Douria a favour (favour) in their ruling, what this means is that in the short term Douria has to live with the knowledge that he has been forced on the Regional Assembly, which several times now has expressed the opinion that he should not be in our ranks. In the longer term, it means that he will always be the RA member who was admitted illegally. To be honest, other than bloody-mindedness I cannot think why he would want to be a RA member under such circumstances.

The Justices have also issued a ruling which CoE himself admits shows that special provision was made for Douria. To the rest of us, it smacks of favouritism - and in TNP we do not expect our courts to be quick, or intelligent, but we do expect them to be impartial.

What ought to have happened is fairly obvious, legal and sensible: Douria's admission to the RA was illegal. He should have been removed from the RA as a consequence, but the way made clear for him to re-apply and have that application voted on by the Regional Assembly. One of two things would have happened: if his "stellar" record in the RA means as much as the justices claim, he would have been voted in - which would have removed any stigma to his name. If this is not the case, he would not be voted in, where at least the sovereignty of the Ra would have been maintained, and Douria would know where he stood.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
The real effect of the ruling is this: the VD cannot admit an applicant to the RA who has failed a previous VD security check, unless the RA overrules that decision. That will outlast Douria's membership, and indeed, the collective memory of this event.
Click to expand...
No, the law the change makes it impossible for a VD to change a prior VD's rejection sans an RA overrule. This ruling makes an exception for TD despite the RA saying twice that TD should not be included in the RA.

Indeed - the only reason why the court came to this finding is because they took so darn long to get there. If the court was as efficient as you have said, they would not have cared that it took them 100+ days to render a decision, that would be status quo and "speedy" in a relative sense.

But nope, the court agreed with me that taking that long was ridiculous. If they did disagree they would not have found that such a lengthy timeframe would have been "punitive" in nature against TD.

All i can do is, SMH. But through this conversation, I see no one really cares so I'm going to waste less of my time on this and move onto something else. It's not worth it, as no one cares.
 
I think we have very different understandings of what the court ruling meant.

Please can we have a diagram?

I think the RA should follow the court's decision and overturn the rejection of Douria.

If the RA fails to do that then Douria should resign.

Punk, just because you're not going to fight the court doesn't mean you need to drop the issue.
 
Chas, the RA doesn't have to overturn the rejection of Douria to follow the court's ruling. Douria is still rejected, and if he applies at any later time, his application will not be considered. It is just that in the meantime, he is a legal member of the RA.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Chas, the RA doesn't have to overturn the rejection of Douria to follow the court's ruling. Douria is still rejected, and if he applies at any later time, his application will not be considered. It is just that in the meantime, he is a legal member of the RA.
Click to expand...

No that's not what I meant.

If they overturn the rejection, and he applies, he will be considered.

If they don't overturn the rejection, and he applies, he will not be considered.

The RA cannot change the court's decision, they should make their own decision:

(1) overturn the VD's rejection by RA vote
(2) if (1) fails, ask Douria to resign

If he does then resign it will have the same effect as if the court had not "overruled" its decision to uphold the rejection.

So rather than following what I mean is co-opting the Court's ruling and placing power back in the hands of the RA membership as a whole.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Chas, the RA doesn't have to overturn the rejection of Douria to follow the court's ruling. Douria is still rejected, and if he applies at any later time, his application will not be considered. It is just that in the meantime, he is a legal member of the RA.
Click to expand...
B-b-b-b-but wait! If we allow that its favourtism and bad and unfair and ew and i dont like dont want it YOURE ALL SHEEPLE WHO DONT CARE WHY CANT YOU JUST BLINDLY FOLLOW ME IN ALL MY OPINIONS INSTEAD OF LETTING THE COURT OVER INFLATE LIKE A BALLOON

A SELF IMPORTANT BALLOON. NO IS ALLOWED TO BE A SELF IMPORTANT BALLOON BUT ME YOUR GODBALLOONTHING OK?
 
Here's a radical idea, and we're already half way there. Take the power away from the Vice Delegate/Security Council, and let the RA decide whether someone is a risk or not? Why should the Executive be in the decision process on who can be a legislative member anyway?
 
Nierr:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Chas, the RA doesn't have to overturn the rejection of Douria to follow the court's ruling. Douria is still rejected, and if he applies at any later time, his application will not be considered. It is just that in the meantime, he is a legal member of the RA.
Click to expand...
B-b-b-b-but wait! If we allow that its favourtism and bad and unfair and ew and i dont like dont want it YOURE ALL SHEEPLE WHO DONT CARE WHY CANT YOU JUST BLINDLY FOLLOW ME IN ALL MY OPINIONS INSTEAD OF LETTING THE COURT OVER INFLATE LIKE A BALLOON

A SELF IMPORTANT BALLOON. NO IS ALLOWED TO BE A SELF IMPORTANT BALLOON BUT ME YOUR GODBALLOONTHING OK?
Click to expand...

That would have been more enlightening without the caps.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Here's a radical idea, and we're already half way there. Take the power away from the Vice Delegate/Security Council, and let the RA decide whether someone is a risk or not? Why should the Executive be in the decision process on who can be a legislative member anyway?
Click to expand...

They assumed that the vice delegate, whose job is basically to defend the delegacy, would be best placed to judge security matters such as this one.

Being an RA member is a priviledge, it gives citizens the ability to hold offices, including the delegacy. If a rogue delegate gets elected, the vice delegate would arguably have failed in their job, from a certain point of view.

Regular RA members don't have this emphasis on Security.
 
That is pretty absurd to lay the onus for Rogue Delegate security at the feet of the Vice Delegate. I think people here still have a dim understanding of the Vice Delegate Security Check bill, I urge you to reread the discussion thread. The Vice Delegate security check consists of basically nothing, it was always intended to be a mechanism to disenfranchise someone who did not break TNP law, but that "we" were unhappy with.

Fundamentally the security check is merely a means for the executive to deny membership to the RA. Frankly, the Assembly should be insulted at the notion that they are not capable of making choices based on the safety and security of the body and region as a whole.

Why do we keep misunderstanding the purpose of this law? Why do we continue to deal with the fallout of this law, all the while ignoring that the law itself is the cause?
 
The law does not *require* the Vice Delegate to base their decision on security reasons, but the security risk language was included to *encourage* the Vice Delegate to only deny applicants who are security risks, and the consultation with the Security Council was added to strengthen that encouragement. Furthermore, the RA has been dutiful in overturning rejections that were not based on security reasons. I think you're the one that is confused about the purpose of the law, DD.
 
Bill proposer:
The Vice delegate may block applications for Security Reasons. It is expected that the Delegate and Speaker and other people who have concerns could raise these with teh Vice Delegate if they wish for an application to be denied for certain reasons. This also allows for political denials, for enforcing persona non grata and for assisting in protecting the sovereignty of the region and checking the membership of the RA...Ultimately however, it is still largely a political decision.
Click to expand...

The security language was included to give the appearance of a reasonable approach.

The consultation with the SC was a reactive measure because the law is flawed in its application, and still is. There is no possibility that the SC can be consulted on a three day timeline, and it merely says "consultation", which I took to mean opening a thread to give a reason, any reason. This law would, admittedly, work perfectly, if the Vice Delegate were to only use it to reject the membership of nations that the oligarchy agrees they do not like.

I would prefer that the pretense be dropped, and that membership to the RA were solely determined by the RA, if there is indeed a "security risk" which is a laughable notion itself.
 
I fully agree with what COE said.

You do raise an interesting point, DD, but I think the line you are drawing between security concerns and political concerns is not as clear as you make out.

Preventing a rogue delegate getting elected is essentially a political choice. That's why you can't divorce the two. In the absence of political parties and properly developed ideologies, taking a dislike to a candidate may come across as mere prejudice.

Take a real example, did McM ban Douria for security reasons or political reasons or personal reasons?

We know that Sanctaria bases some of his government actions on personal reasons, but it is unfair to presume that they are not also political reasons, and security reasons too.

Allowing somebody into a community is what allows them to increase their influence and they gain the power to affect the region, for better or for worse. Naturally, a free region is one that is not afraid of change. The law does allow for a case to be made to protect the region from somebody that the security branch views as a threat. In any such case, the RA still has a choice of whether to go along with the oligarchy or not.

So if my interpretation is right, then that's not really a pretense.
 
I can say I do actually have a process for checking applicants, although I'd rather not reveal what it is. However, I can say that I agree that to lay the onus of a rogue delegate squarely at the feet of the vice as a failing is probably unfair considering the vast amount of variables involved.

I have cleared six (i think?) nations since coming to the Vice Seat as passing security, the bulk of which were brand new nations with no specific markers as to how they will play the game. As chair of the SC I can utilize the tools available to me to make a judgement call as to whether via illegitimate means they are making a run for the delegacy, however, if they legitimately claim the seat and then go rogue, there was nothing up to that point that would preempt such occurring.

Too many variables indeed.
 
DD, the bill was wholely rewritten between the post you quoted and the version that passed. A lot of revisions were made in response to objections that it would be used for political or personal reasons.

EDIT: In fact, the RA voting on each rejection is intended as a fail-safe to prevent such rejections.
 
punk d:
I have found myself caring about many things that the mass of RA members seem to not care about. Before I waste energy on something that will not persuade the mass of you, I wanted to pose a question to my fellow RA members.

A review request concerning the RA membership status of TD was ruled upon this week. The court ruled that DD illegally admitted TD to the RA. What's a bit funny is that the court - due to the length of time it took the court to rule upon the issue - did not revoke the RA membership of TD because, "He has been a productive member of the RA"

Question - does the court have the power to call an action illegal and also subvert the relevant law?

I don't believe they do honestly. I believe the court may be overreaching here when it calls DD's admission of TD illegal and leave it at that.

But, does anyone care about this issue? If the answer is no, then I think i'll just stop trying to comment on "the rule of law" issues as it seems like that is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

As an answer to your question, the action to admit TD to the RA initially had nothing to do with the Court. If you are talking about 'subverting the law' then why wasn't the law properly enforced in the first place which lead to this issue ending up before the Court?

In this instance, The VD apparently approved the security check of TD and in that decision this admitting TD to the RA. The fault is with the initial admission to the RA which, by the way, had nothing to do with the Court.

Second, the matter of the 'Spirit of The Law' is at issue: if you enforce the laws coldly and blindly without consideration of mitigating circumstances then you are asking for trouble. Were you the person whose admission to the RA was 'faulty' under the cold letter of the law, I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining about the Court's decision in this matter. Justice and the Law are often mutually exclusive terms especially when the application of a law mechanically sometimes results in injustice.

Now, if TD did something knowingly wrong in applying to the RA such as making a false statement or had done so for the purpose of evasion, then such a charge should be lodged against TD. But failing any evidence factual on the matter indicating some kind of fraud, the Court decided that the admission as a result of the initial process should stand.

There was no injustice involved in TD's admission to the RA so why should the Court inflict an injustice against TD who was 'lawfully' admitted insofar as he was admitted in the first place? That would be punishing one person for another person's error.





Gracius Maximus:
flemingovia:
To answer PunkD. No. the RA does not care. Sheep do not care.
Click to expand...
:agree:
Click to expand...

That's always been the case in any legislative body that votes without reading legislation. It is also what happens when the body of the law expands to Byzantine levels. ;)

I would suggest the proper legislation be introduced into the RA to remedy the whole process of RA admissions instead of ranting about political motivations that simply are not there.
 
Romanoffia:
There was no injustice involved in TD's admission to the RA so why should the Court inflict an injustice against TD who was 'lawfully' admitted insofar as he was admitted in the first place? That would be punishing one person for another person's error.
Click to expand...

I'm getting a clearer picture now (I think). While I agree no injustice has occurred (to TD anyway), I'm still not completely convinced his admission to the RA was legal (other than his already being in the RA could be taken as constituting a successful admission). Silly String brought up an interesting point about getting into the RA even after failing checks, but that may or may not apply here. Anyway.. I'm still unsure as to why: if DD's overturning of TD's previous RA membership rejection has been ruled illegal, wouldn't any actions/results occurring after that point in time, also be illegal? Perhaps someone could apply a machete to this legal thicket?
 
You'd think that would be the case, except the court has made TD's present RA membership legal.

Zing...
 
Romanoffia:
That's always been the case in any legislative body that votes without reading legislation. It is also what happens when the body of the law expands to Byzantine levels. ;)

I would suggest the proper legislation be introduced into the RA to remedy the whole process of RA admissions instead of ranting about political motivations that simply are not there.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I may have to reevaluate my position, as I currently agree with Romanoffia. :tb1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top