The Conscientious Assembly Person Act

Roman:
It's like passing legislation in the RA to repeal the law of gravity in the region.
Click to expand...
Gravity is a myth. Repeal that nonsense! :rofl:

COE:
Failing to follow the law is not a crime.
Click to expand...
And the legal gymnastics begin.. As mind-boggling as that statement is, there's this:

RA Oath:
I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Legal Code:
Section 1.3: Fraud
11. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of citizens with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.
12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...
Legal Code:
Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct
23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence
Click to expand...
At the very least, failing to follow a Law would result in losing voting privileges in the RA.
 
Romanoffia:
mcmasterdonia:
Irregardless I don't feel we should be copying clauses from real life constitution(s).
Click to expand...
It's not from a real life constitution. :fish:
Click to expand...
Romanoffia is quite right.

If I am correct, this time he has cut and pasted the first bit from the oath sworn by US soldiers, and cut and pasted the second bit from the oath sworn by UK judges to Her Majesty the Queen (the old 1868 oath, not the current one), then slammed them together.
 
falapatorius:
At the very least, failing to follow a Law would result in losing voting privileges in the RA.
Click to expand...
Only as long as the oath retains the promise to follow the law!

Which... is the point that was being made all along.
 
Silly String:
Only as long as the oath retains the promise to follow the law!
Click to expand...
I was replying to the assertion that failing to follow the law isn't a crime (as the oath stands now.. COE was pointing out to Alunya that she hasn't broken any TNP laws by not complying with Section 7.3 of the Legal Code). This proposal may not proceed at all, but allegiance implies compliance to the laws of the land. The language may be changed if/when this actually gets introduced to the RA, but let's not put the cart before the horse.
 
Romanoffia:
SillyString:
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...
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but WTF?! :lol: :rofl:


That, my friend, has got to be the most absolutely inane thing I have ever heard uttered by anyone, anywhere! LOL!



rubberchicken.jpg


Oh.........my.......GOD!​


You slay me, you absolutely slay me! :lol: :rofl:


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.
Click to expand...
So, under your like of reasoning, simply not obeying one's RA or Governmental Oath is not a criminal act?

Heh, simply not obeying the speed limit on a highway is not an offence. Simply not obeying laws against murder is not a crime in and of itself.

I'm so glad you are not an attorney/barrister in RL.
 
Romanoffia:
So, under your like of reasoning, simply not obeying one's RA or Governmental Oath is not a criminal act?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure who you're responding to here, since you quoted yourself... :unsure:

But to repeat this once again, it is a crime to violate a sworn oath. That crime is Gross Misconduct. The oath as it stands right now includes a line obliging its targets to follow the law. Failure to do so constitutes violating the oath, which constitutes Gross Misconduct.

However, if the oath were to be amended to remove the line obligating people to follow the law, then breaking the law would not constitute oath violation and would, therefore, not constitute Gross Misconduct. As there is no crime in the Legal Code called "not following the law", breaches that did not also fall under another criminal definition would not be prosecutable.

That is what is meant when asserting that breaking the law is not in and of itself a crime - "in and of itself" meaning that there is a direct relationship between an action and a clause in the criminal code. Passing classified information to an enemy is in and of itself the crime of Espionage, but lawbreaking is only a crime if the individual has sworn an oath not to break the law, and if their actions qualify as willful or negligent. Simple citizens, in other words, can freely break any portion of the law within their reach[note]There are, on a cursory glance, very few sections of the Legal Code which can possibly be broken by the non-RA citizen. 7.1.4 is one such example; the NPAF may be another unless NPAF members have to swear an oath which includes provisions against lawbreaking.[/note] (with the exception of actions detailed in the Criminal Code) and cannot be prosecuted for it.
 
flemingovia:
mcmasterdonia:
SillyString:
Romanoffia:
So, under your like of reasoning, simply not obeying one's RA or Governmental Oath is not a criminal act?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure who you're responding to here, since you quoted yourself... :unsure: <snip>
Click to expand...
:rofl: :lol:
Click to expand...
Roman is cutting out the middle man and just insulting himself. It saves time in the long run.
Click to expand...
I certainly hope you are being deliberately obtuse. But then again, I suspect you may lack the capacity for anything resembling intentional actions like that that.

I could explain what I really said, but the cumulative intellectual power of some of the people here, if harnessed and concentrated, wouldn't toast a slice of bread. So, I won't waste my time casting an pearls.

Instead, I will limit conversation to those individuals here who don't bleat like sheep.
 
Uh, Roman. In that post Silly was responding to, you *did* quote yourself. So it is legitimately unclear who you are responding to. We can't tell if you were replying to the same post as the one you quoted was, or whether you misclicked and meant to quote someone else. I think your response is way out of line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top