Request for review:

The constitution gives legislative authority to a body of nations called the Regional Assembly, or "RA" for short. The RA has the power to enact, amend, and repeal laws.

It's not clear to me what may be the scope of the laws made by the assembly. It can be gameplay, roleplay, forum organization, instant messaging, real life.

If nations in the region are subject to harassment not preventable by forum TOS, why can the RA not criminalize it and intervene with penalties?

Gameplay and roleplay, whilst distinct on a basic level, can certainly overlap. Roleplay is a means by which to play the game and achieve tangible awards. Gameplay is a method of roleplay that employs the game mechanics as props.

My question is, what is the scope of RA legislative power, in particular with regards to the aforementioned intermingled worlds of the RP multiverse and the gameworld, and the boundaries of NationStates, if indeed they exist.

I thank the court for its indulgence in this matter which I find to be important for undetstanding how chapter one paragraph one should be executed, if it should be at all.

That would be tantamount to enabling the RA to pass laws creating de facto censorship for potential activities on 'foreign forums' not property of this forum or TNP as a region by punishement, and extending the TNP Legal Code to go after people conducting business not in areas under the jurisdiction of TNP or its Legal Code. It is also a pre-emptive proposition.

By extension of the Laws to cover RL activities of people behind various nations would also put a nail in the coffin of 'Duality' as one could be punished for the actions of another persona or personae.

For instance, can the court require another forum to turn over the IP addresses of certain members for prosecution here? Or force the Administration of that forum to divulge information that would violate the TOS of that forum's host, essentially requiring another forum's administration to literally violate RL laws to get at that information just because the members of that forum or its administration just happen to be gamers in NS in this region or elsewhere in NS?

Can we presume you are saying that TNP Legal code should be extended to cover Real Life in forums and websites independent of this forum and NationStates and owned and governed by neither? Are you proposing that this forum's administration should extend its authority over any and all forums against individuals for exercising their right to free speech as promoted on an independent forum? And, do we really want to create a police state where people cannot speak their minds beyond the scope of the rules of this forum?

It is a dangerous thing you are proposing because such laws can be used to pry into private messages here, or on other forums, and including RL emails and other private communications by an act of TNP RP Law or face punishment. Such potential laws or interpretations of such laws would only force free speech underground and would be PR disaster for the region.

Chasmanthe certainly needs to read Article VIII of the Constitution, which certainly limits the legislative power of the Regional Assembly and the Government as a whole with respect to the regional forum:

Article 8. The Regional Forum

1. The Regional Forum will be located at http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/.
2. Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies will be the responsibility of forum administration.

Click to expand...

This request for review is denied. Any existing legislation which the petitioner believes is outside the legitimate scope of the RA's power may be specifically brought to the Court, but this body is not in the business of offering conjecture about hypothetical, nonexistent legislation.

Article II, of the constitution, your honour, with particular emphasis on paragraph two.

Just to clarify, it is the petitioner's assertion that Article 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which reads "2. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.", is outside of the legitimate constitutional scope of the RA's power?

No but that sounds like a much smarter question so if it so please the court to answer that instead, I would not begrudge it doing so.

My enquiry was along the lines that since we can legislate to create a roleplay, can't we apply our laws to a roleplay?

Again, the Court does not engage in hypotheticals.

The Court also does not have the power to declare the Constitution unconstitutional.

If the Attorney General believes that specific legislation - that is, anything contained in the Legal Code - is outside the scope of the RA's power, a specific complaint can be brought.

SillyString:

Again, the Court does not engage in hypotheticals.

The Court also does not have the power to declare the Constitution unconstitutional.

If the Attorney General believes that specific legislation - that is, anything contained in the Legal Code - is outside the scope of the RA's power, a specific complaint can be brought.

Click to expand...

Ok is 7.3 unconstitutional?

[me]sighs.

This question is again denied.

Very vague and very broad questions are inappropriate, as their acceptance gives the Court far too much leeway within which to structure a ruling - if we were inclined to take it up, there is no reason we could not rule, "No, but <some other section> is." Proactive, unconstrained courts are dangerous.

Questions about constitutionality must be presented narrowly - the petitioner must, at minimum, lay out the clauses within which they are concerned a conflict occurs or which they believe a section of legislation violates - even better would be for the petitioner to make an argument of their own as to how they feel the Court should rule.

I also do not understand why the petitioner presented the original request, if it is some sort of review of LC7.3 they are seeking. There seems to be no relationship between them.

Perhaps my original request wss a little hypothetical and lacking in specificity.

Religious roleplays are a product of 7.3 and if heretics are being threatened I need to know how this works vis a vis article 2 of the Bor. The law can be argued to be unconstitutional. It is for the court to resolve such an apparent conflict.

The court may inform us that there is no tension in this community created by 7.3 that more stringent adherence to article 2 could have prevented? I could also ask at the same time was Flem's repeal unconstitutional because it discouraged a religion? Furthermore Flemingovia has coronated a monarch, is this treason? Does the coronation affect the meaning of treason, as Queen Astarial was anointed by a lawfully sanctioned religious body? Should we refrain from overthrowing her? If there is a legal basis, which there might be, then this expands on what the RA may wish to concern itself with in future, viz. Roleplay.

Good lord you aren't half taking this far too seriously.

Chasmanthe:

Religious roleplays are a product of 7.3 and if heretics are being threatened I need to know how this works vis a vis article 2 of the Bor. The law can be argued to be unconstitutional. It is for the court to resolve such an apparent conflict.

The court may inform us that there is no tension in this community created by 7.3 that more stringent adherence to article 2 could have prevented? I could also ask at the same time was Flem's repeal unconstitutional because it discouraged a religion? Furthermore Flemingovia has coronated a monarch, is this treason? Does the coronation affect the meaning of treason, as Queen Astarial was anointed by a lawfully sanctioned religious body? Should we refrain from overthrowing her? If there is a legal basis, which there might be, then this expands on what the RA may wish to concern itself with in future, viz. Roleplay.

Click to expand...

Your questions raise some serious issues. For clarification: Are you saying that since religious roleplay has been legislated, that it is subject to the laws of TNP, vis a vis repeal and/or questions of treason? And as such, it's constitutionality needs to be addressed? I think there is a definite argument to be made, but I want to be sure of your intention.

Chasmanthe has moved his nation out of TNP. So I do not believe he has standing to petition a request for review.

PaulWallLibertarian42:

Chasmanthe has moved his nation out of TNP. So I do not believe he has standing to petition a request for review.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. That doesn't preclude any other member from petitioning for a request for review on the same grounds.

It's a waste of time. We all know what the pre-determined answer to the question is going to be. It's rigged.

Romanoffia:

It's a waste of time. We all know what the pre-determined answer to the question is going to be. It's rigged.

Click to expand...

That may/may not be. The questions should be asked though. Otherwise, this is all a pretense of democracy.

Well, someone should ask the question, but it's not going to be me. I'm tired of getting beat up for expressing dissent or questioning authority. Let someone else stand up for what they believe and be the victim for a change. Homey don't play that game nomore.

As for me, I'm sitting this one out with a big bucket of popcorn waiting for the next installment despite knowing exactly how this movie will end.

Honestly, I can't see how the court can rule any other way than what Silly String has done. The AG has not presented a legal conundrum for the court to review. His latest post at least seems to move closer to this, but it should not be difficult to put together current legal questions citing relevant law and give that to the court to review with a specific question.

There's no conspiracy to not to address the question, but the question being asked is too broad and too poorly formed for the court to address, in my opinion.

Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est.

punk d:

Honestly, I can't see how the court can rule any other way than what Silly String has done. The AG has not presented a legal conundrum for the court to review. His latest post at least seems to move closer to this, but it should not be difficult to put together current legal questions citing relevant law and give that to the court to review with a specific question.

There's no conspiracy to not to address the question, but the question being asked is too broad and too poorly formed for the court to address, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

One conundrum is that LC7.3 contradicts BOR2. The purpose of the latter is undermined by the products of the former. Fighting a religious war requires religious oppression. You can't make a delicious omelette without breaking a few eggs.

And you are welcome to break those eggs with us. The Regional Assembly application thread is here.

did someone declare a religious war and not invite me?

flemingovia:

did someone declare a religious war and not invite me?

Click to expand...

We tried calling you, but your answering machine said you were unavailable.