The Conscientious Regional Assembly Persons Act

I would like to move this to a Formal Discussion:

The Conscientious Regional Assembly Persons Act
​



The Oath required of the Members of the Regional Assembly shall be modified as such:

Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act

2. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

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 do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the The North Pacific against all enemies, foreign and domestic and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and I will do right to all manner of people after the principles stated in the Bill of Rights and Constitution of The North Pacific, without fear or favour, affection or illwill. 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...


Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act of The Legal Code of The North Pacific shall read as follows:



Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act

2. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the The North Pacific against all enemies, foreign and domestic and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and I will do right to all manner of people after the principles stated in the Bill of Rights and Constitution of The North Pacific, without fear or favour, affection or illwill. 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...
 
I would like to open the formal debate with a discussion of an unforeseen benefit to this new oath wording as it relates to an issue brought up by Flemingovia. That issue involves the matter of whether the ability to violate a nations/persons Rights can only be accomplished by the government.

Some hold the position that only the Government can violate an individual's rights, and others hold that individuals can indeed violate the rights of other individuals. Flemingovia brought up in another thread 'inalienable rights' and he appears to hold the position that individuals can indeed commit to actions that violate the rights of other individuals. I would have to agree with his stance.

In the new proposed oath there is the clause:

"...and I will do right to all manner of people after the principles stated in the Bill of Rights and Constitution of The North Pacific, without fear or favour, affection or illwill."
Click to expand...

This would require individuals to respect the rights of other individuals and by the same token, bind individuals to obey the laws. It also would require people not to use those laws as a tool to violate the rights of others or be forced to execute laws in a fashion that is clearly in violation of the BOR or Constitution to the detriment of the rights of an individual.
 
BOR:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The differences in opinion stem from the language of the bolded part. As it stands, this can be rightly interpreted as the gov't authorities of the region shall not infringe upon any nation's rights (free speech, free press, etc.). If you want that to apply to individuals, it needs to be amended along these lines:

BOR with amended language:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed by other TNP member nations and/or TNP offsite forum members. These rights shall be encouraged, and not infringed upon by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Pardon the lack of elegance with the amended language, but I'm not proposing legislation. If there is an appetite to amend the BOR, then fine. I think admins/mods/government officials are the only people who can truly infringe on another persons guaranteed rights (threats of mod/admin action, thread closure/deletion, etc.). But they do have some latitude as stated by:

BOR:
The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
Click to expand...
So it's clear (arguably) that section 2 of the BOR was intended to guard against a tyrannical, repressive government. I can see a problem with the best interests aspect, since that is a subjective viewpoint. Admins/mods are governed by their guidelines for administrative action. I think any deviation from that is dealt with internally. We could always co-opt a thread from the NS General Forum. Our very own moderation section where grievances can be lodged against mods/admins. Not sure that would fly, or is even a good idea. Personally, I think it might be a better idea to address shortcomings in the Legal Code (what constitutes a crime in TNP), but I'm not against amending the BOR.

*on topic* The latest edit is ok, but I'm starting to wonder if it might be simpler to use the oath gov't officials take prior to assuming office. One universal oath might not be a bad idea. :shrug:
 
Interesting:

"and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region" might be eliminated altogether given that it might be an enabling clause for the government to promote one religion to the exclusion of another.






This is interesting quite striking given the context in which you have framed it:

From the BOR - "The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution."

Do you know what this clearly and absolutely means?

It means that the BOR recognises the existence and principles of Delegated Authority, Reserved Rights, and Natural/Inalienable Rights.



Delegated Authority and Reserved Rights: "The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region"

Since the Government must act on behalf of the region, it means that it derives is authority to govern from the People of the Region, delegated authority. It also supports the concept of Reserved Rights insofar as any authority for the government to govern is derived from the People of the Region.


Reserved Rights, Natural Rights, Delegated Authority: - "As permitted and limited under the Constitution."

Which means that the Constitution limits only the functions and authority of the government, not the people who hold certain rights in reserve which are not specifically enumerated in the BOR.


Hence, Rights exist prior to Government, Government exists only because the People delegate it limited authority, and if a government no longer promotes the rights of the People, the People have the right to withdraw such delegated authority an alter, abolish and replace government to suit their needs.

This is further supported by the Constitutional fact that no nation can be forced to give its endorsement to any other nation or nations. Hence, any authority to govern resides with the People as individuals by the very fact that it is entirely established in a mechanical fashion by the extension and aggregation of endorsements.

Hence, natural rights, inalienable rights, delegated authority and reserved rights exist ultimately in the mechanics of NationStates.

The Age of Enlightenment rears its ugly head again! :lol:
 
BOR:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion
Click to expand...
Yes, citizens have rights, as suggested by the bolded word. But the BOR doesn't cover infringement of those rights by individuals. It's not a crime listed in the Legal Code either. Even if I were to troll/spam/flame every thread you created, it would be difficult to prove a rights violation. Of course, admin action would come into play in that circumstance, but I'm not violating your right to free speech (TOS yes).
 
Playing the Devil's Advocate here -

Here's the interesting thing your point brings up - Infringement of an individual's rights aren't even a crime even if the Government does it since there is no actual item in TNP Criminal Law that specifically makes it a crime.

Also, Governments, per se, cannot commit crimes because only individuals can commit crimes as per the BOR (under the current interpretation) and the Legal Code.

Think about it this way - if the Government violates your rights, it took the act of an individual (in the form of a Government official or officials) to have committed a BOR Violation. Hence, since it was an individual who in their capacity of a government official who violated your rights, it was merely an individual acting outside his official authority, and hence not the Government who violated your rights.

Thus, the Court could (and probably would) decide that a government official acted outside his or her official capacity and therefore it was an individual who violated your rights and not the government, and therefore your rights were never violated. Move on, nothing to see here. :P

In reductio, the only way for the Government to violate your rights is to enforce a law that is in violation of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution itself that violates the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Hence, arbitrary actions by government officials in violation of the Law and BOR and Constitution is an act by an individual and not the government because said individual acted beyond their constitutional and legal authority.

So, in essence, you are totally at the mercy of whatever whim an individual wants to do to you. Sure, that individual could be indicted for any number of crimes, but if that crime was conducted against an individual, you'd be up the proverbial creek without a paddle, or at least the perpetrator would walk free.

TL;DR, or however the expression goes. :duh:
 
Roman:
Here's the interesting thing your point brings up - Infringement of an individual's rights aren't even a crime even if the Government does it since there is no actual item in TNP Criminal Law that specifically makes it a crime.
Click to expand...
Lovely isn't it?

Roman:
Think about it this way - if the Government violates your rights, it took the act of an individual (in the form of a Government official or officials) to have committed a BOR Violation. Hence, since it was an individual who in their capacity of a government official who violated your rights, it was merely an individual acting outside his official authority, and hence not the Government who violated your rights.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but an individual can deny he/she acted on behalf of the government, or the government can say the individual was acting on their own. I know there's an aversion to adopting RL government constructs, but the current system is full of holes imo. The high threshold for passage of BOR amendments makes it difficult to fix (understatement).
 
Which brings up the rather cynical theory that all laws and constitutions are carefully designed by the authors so as to hide an infinite number of nearly invisible loopholes. :lol:
 
Formal Debate has ended some time back. Seeing as there are two legislative votes ongoing right now, this bill goes to vote when voting on the Electoral Corrections Bill has concluded (i.e. (time=1410800400) in your respective timezones).
 
r3naissanc3r:
I'm surprised this unnecessary bill made it to vote. Hopefully the RA will have the good sense to reject it.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't it make it to a vote? I have no doubt it will not pass, but it makes a very important statement concerning the nature of the Oath and Government in general if one reads the substantial posts in the debate.

And, of course, we have had any number of unnecessary bills that made it to a vote, and some of them even passed. :P

Besides, pass or not, no harm, no foul.
 
r3naissanc3r:
I'm surprised this unnecessary bill made it to vote. Hopefully the RA will have the good sense to reject it.
Click to expand...
It irks me that Alunya has taken a principled stand against the RA oath, but continues to submit proposals to the RA. To me, that seems like a "having your cake and eating it too" situation. In the future I will be voting "Nay" on any proposal put forward by Alunya while they are not an RA member, and will attempt to procedurally obstruct the same. :)
 
Democratic Donkeys:
r3naissanc3r:
I'm surprised this unnecessary bill made it to vote. Hopefully the RA will have the good sense to reject it.
Click to expand...
It irks me that Alunya has taken a principled stand against the RA oath, but continues to submit proposals to the RA. To me, that seems like a "having your cake and eating it too" situation. In the future I will be voting "Nay" on any proposal put forward by Alunya while they are not an RA member, and will attempt to procedurally obstruct the same. :)
Click to expand...
I fear alunya will always find a willing stooge in the ra. B
But I agree with you.
 
Just because you're not in the RA shouldn't mean you can't comment or submit a proposal. I think that's elitist thinking. We have a number of citizens in the region who actively participate in the region, have good ideas, and may not be RA members. Does that mean we chuck out their ideas because they have not taken an RA oath.
 
Punk D:
Just because you're not in the RA shouldn't mean you can't comment or submit a proposal. I think that's elitist thinking.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree. The stooge remark kind of reinforces that.

DD:
In the future I will be voting "Nay" on any proposal put forward by Alunya while they are not an RA member, and will attempt to procedurally obstruct the same.
Click to expand...
Publicly vowing to obstruct future proposals by any person because of their lack of RA membership could be construed as an oath violation imo:

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...
 
punk d:
Just because you're not in the RA shouldn't mean you can't comment or submit a proposal. I think that's elitist thinking. We have a number of citizens in the region who actively participate in the region, have good ideas, and may not be RA members. Does that mean we chuck out their ideas because they have not taken an RA oath.
Click to expand...
Ohhhhhh, it's elitist now to recognize a distinction that exists in our laws and culture.

And lmao at the idea of using a legally established procedure being an oath violation..Good luck with that case, I await the eventual verdict in 2020.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Whoa man. I just realized that. Roman pulled a troll on us. "CRAP" - The Conscientious Regional Assembly Persons Act.

Thanks for opening our eyes Flem-god.
Click to expand...
OMGROTFLMAO! I actually didn't see that one. :lol:

Alunya came up with the title and I just parroted it. If Alunya indended the acronym, it was effing brilliant because it slipped right past me (and I usually notice silly stuff like that most of the time) and everyone else.

I wish I could take credit for it, but this one is way beyond even my sense of humour, but certainly I will be adding potential silly acronyms to my palate in the future. :facepalm:
 
Democratic Donkeys:
punk d:
Just because you're not in the RA shouldn't mean you can't comment or submit a proposal. I think that's elitist thinking. We have a number of citizens in the region who actively participate in the region, have good ideas, and may not be RA members. Does that mean we chuck out their ideas because they have not taken an RA oath.
Click to expand...
Ohhhhhh, it's elitist now to recognize a distinction that exists in our laws and culture.

And lmao at the idea of using a legally established procedure being an oath violation..Good luck with that case, I await the eventual verdict in 2020.
Click to expand...
Recognizing a distinction is far different than

In the future I will be voting "Nay" on any proposal put forward by Alunya while they are not an RA member
Click to expand...

Citizens cannot vote on RA bills, citizens don't vote for the delegate as of now. But citizens are members of the community and I think it is extremely elitist to say you won't vote for anything that comes from a citizen simply because they are a citizen and not an RA member.

The distinction between an RA member and a citizen is that the RA member has the power to propose and vote on bills. It does not mean citizens can't contribute and propose measures that may actually be useful to the workings of The North Pacific.
 
DD:
And lmao at the idea of using a legally established procedure being an oath violation..Good luck with that case, I await the eventual verdict in 2020.
Click to expand...
My bad.. I forgot you're of the TL;DR crowd. I said.. (notice italics)

me:
Publicly vowing to obstruct future proposals by any person because of their lack of RA membership could be construed as an oath violation imo
Click to expand...
I'm fully aware of RA procedure. You're entitled to use it, but public statements about your intention can influence others to follow suit. Example:

Flem:
I fear alunya will always find a willing stooge in the ra. B
But I agree with you.
Click to expand...
In fact, it could damage Alunya's ability to effectively contribute to the region. I think this is a less than subtle attempt to punish Alunya for her anti-Flemingovianism stance.

TL;DR version: Irresponsible (as an RA member and a global mod).
 
One of the reasons we have the citizens section in the RA is for the purposes of holding the government to account. Any citizen can seek a recall of a government officer. They can also seek amendments to the law.

Admittedly, I'd rather see Alunya in the RA and subject to the RA oath. But Alunya cannot move his bills to a vote without the support of an RA member. It isn't as though Alunya is sending through multiple bills on his own accord. So it is a non-issue for me.
 
McM:
Admittedly, I'd rather see Alunya in the RA and subject to the RA oath.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Barring that though, Alunya's bill proposals are decently written.

As to the oath: I don't see what the big deal is about not having an 'obey the laws' clause. Even if, as the naysayers fear, a person may have license to break the law, they will still get charged/tried/sentenced if they do. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense.
 
Silly String:
They can't be found guilty of breaking the law when breaking the law isn't itself a crime...
Click to expand...
??? So we have to stipulate somewhere that breaking the law is a crime? Pardon me while I.. :rofl:
 
falapatorius:
Silly String:
They can't be found guilty of breaking the law when breaking the law isn't itself a crime...
Click to expand...
??? So we have to stipulate somewhere that breaking the law is a crime? Pardon me while I.. :rofl:
Click to expand...
...Yes, we've been over this before.

See the entirety of this thread about how crimes are only things defined in the criminal code, and breaking other parts of the law are only criminal because they constitute oath violation, and removing the bit in the oath that requires obedience to the law is removing the whole criminality of doing so.

We've had this discussion, and you were part of it. Do you really not remember?
 
There was a case about that a while ago. I recall we had to specifically state who our allies were in the legal code as our treaties were not enough to establish that. Just one example of the incredibly nuanced matter that is TNP law.
 
Yes, crimes need to be spelled out, but to say breaking the law (as it is now) isn't a crime is just..
The only real crime that applies to this is gross misconduct. But, if you remember, Alunya's SC oath ameliorates that. That oath is much better imo. Which is why I would advocate that as a universal oath.
 
Breaking the law is only the crime of Gross Misconduct because the RA oath specifies that you are required to obey the law. Removing that clause removes the ability for anybody breaking the law to be charged with or convicted of a crime.

So yes, it needs to be spelled out that breaking parts of the law that are not parts of the criminal code is a crime. Which you seem to agree with now, so not sure why the :rofl: .... :unsure:
 
Silly:
Breaking the law is only the crime of Gross Misconduct because the RA oath specifies that you are required to obey the law. Removing that clause removes the ability for anybody breaking the law to be charged with or convicted of a crime.
Click to expand...
I think you mean that crime. Gross misconduct is the only crime tied to an oath. Other crimes are not. But just because the obedience to her laws clause is removed, doesn't necessarily mean gross misconduct is no longer a crime:

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...
Granted, responsible action is a bit vague, but can be cited. Furthermore, there is a bill at vote, while not ideal, can replace what we have. I'll say again, I'm in favor of adopting a universal oath based upon the oath of office.

The reason for the :rofl: was the assertion that breaking the law isn't a crime. (RL as opposed to RP)
 
I'm not sure why you would have thought I was referring to RL lawbreaking, which is an entirely separate matter.

I think you mean that crime. Gross misconduct is the only crime tied to an oath. Other crimes are not. But just because the obedience to her laws clause is removed, doesn't necessarily mean gross misconduct is no longer a crime
Click to expand...

I don't mean "that crime", in fact. As has been covered extensively, there are all kinds of ways to break the law without committing any crime except Gross Misconduct, which is why the clause in the oath about having to obey the law needs to remain present.

Other clauses in the criminal code aren't relevant to this discussion, because everyone agrees that they're crimes no matter what. It's other acts of lawbreaking that need to be covered, and currently are, but won't be if that language is removed.

It would be very difficult to prove that somebody was not "acting responsibly" if what they were doing was not criminal.
 
Silly:
It would be very difficult to prove that somebody was not "acting responsibly" if what they were doing was not criminal.
Click to expand...
Depends on your definition of 'acting responsibly' I guess. But in the context of an oath, it carries more weight. :shrug:
 
Sort of, and it's definitely not impossible to prove irresponsible action - just a pretty high bar, and higher when that action isn't criminal.

Making it harder to prosecute an action that everyone thinks should be prosecutable, when that action would more easily be covered by requiring adherence to the law, seems backwards to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top