The Conscientious Assembly Person Act
- Thread starter Alunya
- Start date
Sauceistan
TNPer
I don't feel like we're asking too much for RA members to obey the laws. There is nothing in the legal code that I think people would morally object to following.
falapatorius
TNPer
While I admit to some uncertainty as to why you feel that phrase should be struck, I concede the language could be tweaked. I offer this:
I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], hereby pledges allegiance to The North Pacific. I further pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific, and that no nation under my control will undermine the security of the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may be subject to sanctions in accordance with TNP Law. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
You asked that an RA member take this up. I will if this edit is agreeable.
I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], hereby pledges allegiance to The North Pacific. I further pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific, and that no nation under my control will undermine the security of the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may be subject to sanctions in accordance with TNP Law. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
You asked that an RA member take this up. I will if this edit is agreeable.
falapatorius
TNPer
Andrew:
Alright. I'm loathe to introduce it til I get some feedback from Alunya though. Her idea after all..
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I have no idea why we would want to strike obeying the law from the oath.
falapatorius
TNPer
McM:
That did seem out of left field, but I think 'allegiance' ameliorates that.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Interesting point, considering that one way of testing the constitutionality of a law is to violate it deliberately.mcmasterdonia:
I get the distinct impression that the proposed Bill/Law has an element of 'conscientious objection' to it, or rather to create a mitigation if a law is disobeyed out of a sense of conscientious objection. Nicht wahr?
falapatorius
TNPer
So.. when can you assume people will follow the law? An oath is an oath.Egalotir:
If that's the case, then why bother?. Dissent has no place in TNP. No duh.Romanoffia:
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- Discord
- sanctaria
I don't support the removal of "obedience" from the oath. All members should obey the laws - put conscientious objection clauses into the law itself if you must, but to remove the requirement for RA members to obey the law in their oath is way too much.
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/Them
Allegiance is just another way of saying loyalty, doesn't imply or suggest that you will follow our laws any more than loyalty does.
There is no reason to remove possibly the most important phrase in the oath from the oath.
There is no reason to remove possibly the most important phrase in the oath from the oath.
falapatorius
TNPer
You need to read a bit more. Allegiance is more binding than loyalty. But religious crackpots are not known for clarity of thought. Perhaps your shepherd can can help with baa-sic responses.
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/Them
I understand that you're butthurt because yet again the Regional Assembly has decided that you and yours are a problem and we don't accept your positions, but go be butthurt in the corner.
You're whining and bitching is boring now. If you don't like the fact that you lost - again - and will continue to lose whenever you bring up Flemingovianism, perhaps you should go seek out another region.
Who knows, you may actually contribute to that one. Knowing you however, I very much doubt it.
You're whining and bitching is boring now. If you don't like the fact that you lost - again - and will continue to lose whenever you bring up Flemingovianism, perhaps you should go seek out another region.
Who knows, you may actually contribute to that one. Knowing you however, I very much doubt it.
Is there some sort of baton that is getting passed from romanoffia to Grosseschnauzer to falaptorius?falapatorius:
Anyway, on the general issue, I think removing the "obedience to our laws" clause introduces a massive, exploitable loophole into our constitution.
And the last thing our regional laws need is yet another loophole.
falapatorius
TNPer
Not at all. I'll ignore the fact you can't spell.. not surprising really.. ignorance is prevalent. Nierr is obviously a flem minion. Don't care really.. it's easy to influence r****d*. @Nierr.. do you honestly think I would be butthurt because of some knobbish religion? You delusional idiots are welcome to circle all you want. Give us a kiss to prove your solidness.
falapatorius
TNPer
Oh.. my apologies.. you're the conscience of TNP. Just like Flem is the **** of the *******. Can you spell ****? I'll bet you can. You don't know me btw. And that's good.. I can barely be bothered to to give a damn about you..
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
[ADMIN HAT] Enough. Falapatorious flaming will not be tolerated on this board and I have raised your warning level. Others will do well to not cross this line either. All of you will return to the discussing the topic of the thread, if you cannot do so without flaming one another, I suggest you take a step back from the debate for a while.
Tomb
TNPer
Okay, so getting back to the topic.
I do understand Aluyna's angle of thought.
However, I believe that to be part of the Legislating body of a region, you need to obey its laws.
Because it does not make sense to have a legislature that makes laws for the region, but does not obey them.
So that's my point of view regarding this proposal.
Thanks,
~Tomb
I do understand Aluyna's angle of thought.
However, I believe that to be part of the Legislating body of a region, you need to obey its laws.
Because it does not make sense to have a legislature that makes laws for the region, but does not obey them.
So that's my point of view regarding this proposal.
Thanks,
~Tomb
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Where's your spirit of civil disobedience?The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
falapatorius
TNPer
mcmasterdonia:
@Alunya: So.. is this a serious attempt at legislation?
Treize_Dreizehn
TNPer
I'm going to agree with a few others and say this really isn't needed.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
But we need more legislation! We need more convoluted legislation to point out the idiocy of the convoluted legislation we already have. Where's your sense of bureaucratic worship?!
We need a legal system and Constitution so convoluted, tortuous and conflicted that it is utterly incomprehensible and fluid as to boggle the mind. Oh, wait. Never mind.
We need a legal system and Constitution so convoluted, tortuous and conflicted that it is utterly incomprehensible and fluid as to boggle the mind. Oh, wait. Never mind.
falapatorius
TNPer
Don't forget 'esoteric'. Wouldn't want the laity to get uppity.Roman:
*on topic* I'm assuming that, like any other non-cabal (
) sponsored bill... this one is dead?
Nasania
TNPer
Perhaps the phrase "obedience to the laws of TNP” can be left in, but add the phrase "to the best of my ability”. Now this leads to some concerns: What happens if a law infringes on a legislators ability to perform their duties? Could either of these new additions(Alunya's original or mine) be abused by ambitious people to strike out unwanted laws? If so, how could this abuse be prevented? Also, do the Bill of Rights and appropiate Court Rulings already, and adequately, address personal freedom concerns?
On Oaths...
The Law is the Law. Except where explicitly stated otherwise, an oath is not a prerequisite to the prosecution of offenses against the law.
As an example, if a nation were to attempt a coup against The North Pacific, said nation could be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced without knowing at the time of the offense that the Codified Law of The North Pacific even existed. Should that nation find refuge in another region, or even cease to exist, the laws of The North Pacific still permit a trial in absentia with a court-appointed defense counsel. It may be that the sentence is unenforceable, but justice may still be served.
The default operating norm, and the common expectation, is that one will endeavor to obey the law.
A requirement to swear to obey the law is largely ineffective.
The player who has determined for herself that she will always obey the law has no need to give much thought to swearing such an oath. It is as easy as agreeing that the sky is blue.
It is the lawbreakers that the phrase is aimed at. There are four of them.
The inadvertent lawbreaker has no intent to break the law. It would stand to reason that he also had no intent to break his oath, but has done so -- also inadvertently.
The malevolent lawbreaker has no compunction about breaking the law for her own (or others') nefarious schemes. She is likely to have no compunction about breaking her oath concurrently in executing her crime(s). She will not be inhibited in any measure by swearing an oath she fully does not intend to keep. She is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the oath is effective camouflage to her.
The indifferent lawbreaker doesn't care about breaking the law. That does not mean that he doesn't care about oaths; he might -- or he might not. If he does, then and only then does the swearing of obedience to the law have an actual deterrent effect. But that is highly dependent on the personality of the particular indifferent lawbreaker, not on the presence of the key phrase.
And then there is the conscientious lawbreaker. She is breaking the law because it conflicts with her conscience. She is most likely to take her oaths seriously. Ironically, for her, the requirement that she swear to obey the law is most likely to cause her to renounce her oath. This should serve as clear and convincing evidence that something is wrong with the law or with the government.
Governments usually resist remedying the matter at first, but eventually come around. Luis de Leon, Ferenc Deak, Susan B. Anthony, Arthur Griffith, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela would likely agree.
...and Morality
As for those who think that here is nothing in the legal code that people would morally object to following, think again. I resigned on moral principle over a matter of law in The North Pacific.
On Law...
I have not called for the repeal of Chapter 7, section 7.3: Religious Observance of the Codified Law of The North Pacific.
While I emphatically object to its presence, as best as I have been able to determine, there is nothing in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Codified Law of The North Pacific that would prevent The North Pacific from adopting one (or more) religions as the religion and church of The North Pacific.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that all the necessary procedures were followed correctly in bringing it about as part and parcel of the law of The North Pacific.
I have no problem stating that clause 14, establishing Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific, is part of the Codified Law of The North Pacific.
My religious beliefs require that I reject the designation of Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific. I find I cannot, in good conscience, accept the validity of Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of the North Pacific.
Just because The North Pacific has the legal right to establish a regional religion does not mean that doing so is morally right. As a body, you don't have to adhere to my moral code. God grants free will, and I believe you have the right to be in error.
Just don't ask me to lend my personal imprimatur, my nihil obstat, to the transgression. This is what the lot of you demand of me when you require that I swear to obey the law in this instance if I am to be a member of the Regional Assembly. I won't do it.
...and Order
As to the feuding that has prevailed, I have some things to say.
First, for those of you who have brandished my resignation as proof positive that Section 7.3 is somehow unconstitutional, please stop. While I am an American, and familiar with the exclusion clause in the second amendment to the U. S. Constitution, I recognize that The North Pacific is not The United States. My resignation is based on religious grounds of which you have very little knowledge and apparently even less regard.
And for those of you who think that I am oversensitive on this issue, again, my resignation is based on religious grounds of which you have very little knowledge and apparently even less regard. I can indeed distinguish between real life and role play, though some of you insinuate otherwise. I also think for myself. And after a while, Romanoffia's screed, while containing many valid points, comes across as repetitive and tiresome. Don't assume that just cause you believe that the cat is listening to the parrot that both bird and feline are thinking alike.
It is disheartening that the Delegate should himself make those assertions in an addendum to his Statement on the Discussion about Flemingovianism as it carries the weight of his Office. It is not indicative of the encouragement of the free expression of religion one expects from the governmental authorities of the region (Clause 2, Bill of Rights). As an example, it reflects poorly on the government. As for myself, I'm rather pragmatic about it, and have assumed that the comments were made in the heat of argument; I hold no grudge.
I am hopeful, now that spleens seemed to have been vented, that there will finally be some serious consideration of legislation to resolve this affair. Clearly The North Pacific has expressed its desire, multiple times, to retain Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific. And just as clearly, I refuse to accept the validity of that clause. I believe I am a responsible member of The North Pacific's society, and that I have much to contribute. Waiving the requirement that I (or anyone else) obey such laws would permit me to participate more fully in The North Pacific.
On Crime...
I am currently in violation of the law. Definitions are part and parcel of the law, as it is with reference to actors, subjects and objects that acts are required, recommended, permitted or proscribed. Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of the North Pacific defines Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific. I do not accept its validity -- a thought crime to be sure, but a crime nonetheless.
As I intend to keep violating that law, it will not do to ask me to just quietly take the oath and get on with it. That would violate the oath and on its own merits I won't do that. It would also subject me to the charge of Gross Negligence and possibly Fraud. And to anyone who would make such a suggestion, they could be charged with Conspiracy.
As things currently stand, the Court of The North Pacific cannot try me because the crime I am committing is not listed in the Criminal Code. Prosecution could only be effected under Gross Negligence -- but that requires that I be bound by the oath of the Regional Assembly.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I resigned to escape possible prosecution. While I don't seek prosecution either (and some might suggest this as a means of testing the constitutionality of the law, an argument I reject), I resigned because it was the right thing to do. I have a great deal of respect for oaths. I am sure they are meant to be kept.
...and Punishment
Suppose for a moment that I had not resigned. Suppose further that somehow my rejection of clause 14 had been discovered, that the Attorney General did decide to charge me with Gross Negligence, that a trial was held, that I lost and was found guilty, and that I faced sentencing. (That is a lot of supposition, and borders on hyperbole, but bear with us for just the moment.)
What possible punishment could I face?
Clause 8 of Chapter 2: Penal Code of the Codified Law of The North Pacific provides the answer:
"Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit."
That is less punitive than what I now endure, for I am disbarred from the Regional Assembly, disenfranchised in the elections of The North Pacific, and disqualified for standing for any office of The North Pacific indefinitely. And this is all without due process.
On Justice
Ah, you might say, I brought it upon myself by resigning from the Regional Assembly. Yes, and no -- for the resignation was made under duress. I still wish to be part of the Regional Assembly. But it is patently unfair to require that I either obey the law or obey my conscience. Ideally, we should all be presented with the opportunity to do both simultaneously.
I've already made it clear that I feel I have no legal grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the law. I would be the only one with standing if those grounds existed; they don't. I have to appeal to you, the members of the Regional Assembly, for any relief.
You can either grant that relief or continue with the status quo. That is entirely up to you. It is your conscience that you have to live with.
>^,,^<
Alunya
The Law is the Law. Except where explicitly stated otherwise, an oath is not a prerequisite to the prosecution of offenses against the law.
As an example, if a nation were to attempt a coup against The North Pacific, said nation could be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced without knowing at the time of the offense that the Codified Law of The North Pacific even existed. Should that nation find refuge in another region, or even cease to exist, the laws of The North Pacific still permit a trial in absentia with a court-appointed defense counsel. It may be that the sentence is unenforceable, but justice may still be served.
The default operating norm, and the common expectation, is that one will endeavor to obey the law.
A requirement to swear to obey the law is largely ineffective.
The player who has determined for herself that she will always obey the law has no need to give much thought to swearing such an oath. It is as easy as agreeing that the sky is blue.
It is the lawbreakers that the phrase is aimed at. There are four of them.
The inadvertent lawbreaker has no intent to break the law. It would stand to reason that he also had no intent to break his oath, but has done so -- also inadvertently.
The malevolent lawbreaker has no compunction about breaking the law for her own (or others') nefarious schemes. She is likely to have no compunction about breaking her oath concurrently in executing her crime(s). She will not be inhibited in any measure by swearing an oath she fully does not intend to keep. She is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the oath is effective camouflage to her.
The indifferent lawbreaker doesn't care about breaking the law. That does not mean that he doesn't care about oaths; he might -- or he might not. If he does, then and only then does the swearing of obedience to the law have an actual deterrent effect. But that is highly dependent on the personality of the particular indifferent lawbreaker, not on the presence of the key phrase.
And then there is the conscientious lawbreaker. She is breaking the law because it conflicts with her conscience. She is most likely to take her oaths seriously. Ironically, for her, the requirement that she swear to obey the law is most likely to cause her to renounce her oath. This should serve as clear and convincing evidence that something is wrong with the law or with the government.
Governments usually resist remedying the matter at first, but eventually come around. Luis de Leon, Ferenc Deak, Susan B. Anthony, Arthur Griffith, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela would likely agree.
...and Morality
As for those who think that here is nothing in the legal code that people would morally object to following, think again. I resigned on moral principle over a matter of law in The North Pacific.
On Law...
I have not called for the repeal of Chapter 7, section 7.3: Religious Observance of the Codified Law of The North Pacific.
While I emphatically object to its presence, as best as I have been able to determine, there is nothing in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Codified Law of The North Pacific that would prevent The North Pacific from adopting one (or more) religions as the religion and church of The North Pacific.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that all the necessary procedures were followed correctly in bringing it about as part and parcel of the law of The North Pacific.
I have no problem stating that clause 14, establishing Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific, is part of the Codified Law of The North Pacific.
My religious beliefs require that I reject the designation of Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific. I find I cannot, in good conscience, accept the validity of Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of the North Pacific.
Just because The North Pacific has the legal right to establish a regional religion does not mean that doing so is morally right. As a body, you don't have to adhere to my moral code. God grants free will, and I believe you have the right to be in error.
Just don't ask me to lend my personal imprimatur, my nihil obstat, to the transgression. This is what the lot of you demand of me when you require that I swear to obey the law in this instance if I am to be a member of the Regional Assembly. I won't do it.
...and Order
As to the feuding that has prevailed, I have some things to say.
First, for those of you who have brandished my resignation as proof positive that Section 7.3 is somehow unconstitutional, please stop. While I am an American, and familiar with the exclusion clause in the second amendment to the U. S. Constitution, I recognize that The North Pacific is not The United States. My resignation is based on religious grounds of which you have very little knowledge and apparently even less regard.
And for those of you who think that I am oversensitive on this issue, again, my resignation is based on religious grounds of which you have very little knowledge and apparently even less regard. I can indeed distinguish between real life and role play, though some of you insinuate otherwise. I also think for myself. And after a while, Romanoffia's screed, while containing many valid points, comes across as repetitive and tiresome. Don't assume that just cause you believe that the cat is listening to the parrot that both bird and feline are thinking alike.
It is disheartening that the Delegate should himself make those assertions in an addendum to his Statement on the Discussion about Flemingovianism as it carries the weight of his Office. It is not indicative of the encouragement of the free expression of religion one expects from the governmental authorities of the region (Clause 2, Bill of Rights). As an example, it reflects poorly on the government. As for myself, I'm rather pragmatic about it, and have assumed that the comments were made in the heat of argument; I hold no grudge.
I am hopeful, now that spleens seemed to have been vented, that there will finally be some serious consideration of legislation to resolve this affair. Clearly The North Pacific has expressed its desire, multiple times, to retain Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific. And just as clearly, I refuse to accept the validity of that clause. I believe I am a responsible member of The North Pacific's society, and that I have much to contribute. Waiving the requirement that I (or anyone else) obey such laws would permit me to participate more fully in The North Pacific.
On Crime...
I am currently in violation of the law. Definitions are part and parcel of the law, as it is with reference to actors, subjects and objects that acts are required, recommended, permitted or proscribed. Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of the North Pacific defines Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific. I do not accept its validity -- a thought crime to be sure, but a crime nonetheless.
As I intend to keep violating that law, it will not do to ask me to just quietly take the oath and get on with it. That would violate the oath and on its own merits I won't do that. It would also subject me to the charge of Gross Negligence and possibly Fraud. And to anyone who would make such a suggestion, they could be charged with Conspiracy.
As things currently stand, the Court of The North Pacific cannot try me because the crime I am committing is not listed in the Criminal Code. Prosecution could only be effected under Gross Negligence -- but that requires that I be bound by the oath of the Regional Assembly.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I resigned to escape possible prosecution. While I don't seek prosecution either (and some might suggest this as a means of testing the constitutionality of the law, an argument I reject), I resigned because it was the right thing to do. I have a great deal of respect for oaths. I am sure they are meant to be kept.
...and Punishment
Suppose for a moment that I had not resigned. Suppose further that somehow my rejection of clause 14 had been discovered, that the Attorney General did decide to charge me with Gross Negligence, that a trial was held, that I lost and was found guilty, and that I faced sentencing. (That is a lot of supposition, and borders on hyperbole, but bear with us for just the moment.)
What possible punishment could I face?
Clause 8 of Chapter 2: Penal Code of the Codified Law of The North Pacific provides the answer:
"Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit."
That is less punitive than what I now endure, for I am disbarred from the Regional Assembly, disenfranchised in the elections of The North Pacific, and disqualified for standing for any office of The North Pacific indefinitely. And this is all without due process.
On Justice
Ah, you might say, I brought it upon myself by resigning from the Regional Assembly. Yes, and no -- for the resignation was made under duress. I still wish to be part of the Regional Assembly. But it is patently unfair to require that I either obey the law or obey my conscience. Ideally, we should all be presented with the opportunity to do both simultaneously.
I've already made it clear that I feel I have no legal grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the law. I would be the only one with standing if those grounds existed; they don't. I have to appeal to you, the members of the Regional Assembly, for any relief.
You can either grant that relief or continue with the status quo. That is entirely up to you. It is your conscience that you have to live with.
>^,,^<
Alunya
I'm going to counter with this, as it may give the necessary warm fuzzies that some folks feel they need to have in regards to the law:falapatorius:
There may be some that feel that this leaves a loophole (it does). My own view is that if there are items in the Codified Law of The North Pacific that are serious enough to warrant punishment, then they ought to be specifically referenced in the criminal code section. Cultural declarations across the board just don't warrant that level of severity.Modified Oath:
Otherwise, it would seem to be that the sensible thing is to change or modify the specific law that is at the root of the issue. Others have tried that, and I'm loathe to suggest such a pragmatic solution against the will of the majority. I have too much respect for my fellow players to put everyone through such misery, and if another solution cannot be found, I would rather suffer the injustice instead. I won't be happy about it, and it certainly isn't fair, but happiness and fairness are never promised to us.
>^,,^<
Alunya
- Discord
- COE#7110
This, I believe, is patently false. The law does not require you to accept its validity. It is valid, but it does not bind you to accept that. I would ask which clause it is that you are violating. If it is clause 14, then I would counter that Flemingovianism *has* been adopted as the religion and church of TNP, and nothing you have or haven't done is causing that not to be true. Violation of clause 15 could only be done by curtailing someone's religious freedom, and I don't think you're asserting that you've done that. You're not in a position to grant financial or tax advantages, so you aren't in violation of clause 16. Neither are you in a position to prevent the regional observance of flemingovian holidays, so there goes clause 17. You are not involved in any scheme to stack the cabinet with flemingovian officials or bar the participation of delegate-invited flemingovian officials at regional events, so you can't be in violation of clause 18 or 19.Alunya:
What I'm driving at is this: I may reject the validity of certain acts of the US congress that allow troops to be sent into battle without a declaration of war, but that doesn't mean I'm in violation of the tonkin gulf resolutions. You aren't breaking the law, and even if you were an RA member, you would not be guilty of gross misconduct for your failure to acknowledge the validity of 7.3.
I don't think there is any need to remove the clause of the oath swearing to obey the laws of TNP, because there is a fifth type of lawbreaker that you didn't acknowledge, the daredevil. We have plenty of these in TNP - these are the folks who want to break the law and get away with it because it is fun/absurd/makes TNP look silly. Without the obedience clause, no one could be charged with gross misconduct for breaking a law that isn't in the criminal code under an RA oath violation. That is music to the ears of the daredevil.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
I think a solution to this issue is much more simple than just striking the 'obedience to her laws' clause from the oath. I have nobbled and modified a couple of phrases (two to be exact) found in RL oaths and tweaked them for this region:
This oath places the Constitution above the Law where it should be and prevents individuals from being forces to comply and be 'obedient' in a blind fashion to certain laws that are legitimately objectionable in the morality department as per items on the BOR.
This oath places the Constitution above the Law where it should be and prevents individuals from being forces to comply and be 'obedient' in a blind fashion to certain laws that are legitimately objectionable in the morality department as per items on the BOR.
falapatorius
TNPer
@Alunya: Firstly, thank you for responding. I was prepared to let this die. Your stated reasons for resigning from the RA are appreciated. While I may disagree with you on the Constitutionality of a State Religion, that's neither here nor there. I too am morally opposed to the idea of legislating any religion. We just have different approaches to protesting it. You are taking the passive resistance route, and I'm.. well.. not. Different strokes for different folks.
Anyway.. I like Alunya's edit of my potential proposal. Roman's is fine too, albeit a little wordy. Since it was Alunya's idea, I'll defer to her choice of which to go forward with. Either is acceptable to me.
Different strokes for different folks. Anyway.. I like Alunya's edit of my potential proposal. Roman's is fine too, albeit a little wordy.
Since it was Alunya's idea, I'll defer to her choice of which to go forward with. Either is acceptable to me.
I think plagiarism is bad.
Edit: To build on COE's point, it is worth bearing in mind that in TNP, simply failing to follow the law is not in and of itself a crime - the only reason it can be prosecuted when it occurs is because RA members and above swear an oath to follow the law, and violating that oath is included under Gross Misconduct.
That could be changed, by amending the definition of that crime to directly include violating the law, which would remove some of the necessity of including a promise to obey the law in our oaths. But unless that changes, removing the ability to prosecute lawbreaking is problematic.
Edit: To build on COE's point, it is worth bearing in mind that in TNP, simply failing to follow the law is not in and of itself a crime - the only reason it can be prosecuted when it occurs is because RA members and above swear an oath to follow the law, and violating that oath is included under Gross Misconduct.
That could be changed, by amending the definition of that crime to directly include violating the law, which would remove some of the necessity of including a promise to obey the law in our oaths. But unless that changes, removing the ability to prosecute lawbreaking is problematic.
PaulWallLibertarian42
TNPer
Even fair use/public domain? Jus curious. Not that I agree or disagree. This is surely off topic. But I didnt realize the IRL constitution was trademarked?SillyString:I think plagiarism is bad.
Edit: To build on COE's point, it is worth bearing in mind that in TNP, simply failing to follow the law is not in and of itself a crime - the only reason it can be prosecuted when it occurs is because RA members and above swear an oath to follow the law, and violating that oath is included under Gross Misconduct.
That could be changed, by amending the definition of that crime to directly include violating the law, which would remove some of the necessity of including a promise to obey the law in our oaths. But unless that changes, removing the ability to prosecute lawbreaking is problematic.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Irregardless I don't feel we should be copying clauses from real life constitution(s).
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
It's not from a real life constitution.mcmasterdonia:
Since real life logic and reasoning is apparently meaningless in TNP and on this forum, I move we should strike all written language from the forum because written language, logic and reason exist in real life.
Nothing personal, McM, but your statement as to why not to use rationally constructed items is, well, a cop-out that excuses all manner of tortuous violation of the rules and laws we establish in TNP/NationStates.
It's like passing legislation in the RA to repeal the law of gravity in the region.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Excuse me, but WTF?!SillyString:
That, my friend, has got to be the most absolutely inane thing I have ever heard uttered by anyone, anywhere! LOL!
Oh.........my.......GOD!
You slay me, you absolutely slay me!
OK, back on topic.
There is a little thing in legal systems around the world that describes the results, liability and direct action of failing to obey the law in any instance. It's called:
Crime of Omission: In the criminal law, an omission, or failure to act, will constitute an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty.
- Discord
- COE#7110
SillyString is correct. "Failure to follow the law" is not listed anywhere in the criminal code, and if it's not in the criminal code, it is not a crime. For example, section 3.1, clause 2 requires the court to select a chief justice. If the court did not do so, then you could not charge them with violating section 3.1, clause 2 of the legal code, because that is not a crime. You could charge them with gross misconduct, but they would only be guilty if whoever was appointed to rule on the case decided that failing to follow 3.1:2 fit the definition of gross misconduct. Failing to follow the law is not a crime.Romanoffia:Excuse me, but WTF?!SillyString:
That, my friend, has got to be the most absolutely inane thing I have ever heard uttered by anyone, anywhere! LOL!