The Conscientious Regional Assembly Persons Act

Romanoffia

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
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...


Yes, I know that I nobbled some text from public domain sources (British and American), but don't listen to those how hate Americans who will present a straw man argument or two about plagiarism (just because they dislike Americans). Just think of the logic and implications of the changes to the oath.

Just to disarm the coming straw man arguments by the detractors of this proposition which will assuredly ensue, let me detail what scares them the most:

The detractors will be upset at this proposal mainly because it requires RA members to bear allegiance to The North Pacific, The Constitution, the Laws, and the Government - in that exact order.

Of course, such an arrangement would necessarily require disobedience to 'politicians' and people who may attempt to thwart the Constitution by twisting the Constitution and legal code in order to defeat the Constitution and legal code.

This oath will affirm that the ultimate power resides in the People, not the government. It will affirm that the Government is a Servant of the People and not the Master of the People. It will affirm that the Rights of the Individual will never be sacrificed to the delegated authority of the Government.

So, the simple question is: Which oath would you rather take? The existing one or this proposed one?
 
I agree with DD. I don't think there are enough promises and swearings and vows in that oath.

How about adding in something about "love, protect, honor, and obey"? I think that would improve it most mightily.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Excellent adaptation of the source material! I only wonder if it is not quite long enough of an oath?
Click to expand...
It could be longer. I could add "So Help Me Flemingovia God" at the end, but that would be too tongue in cheek.

But who the hell cares, most people cut and paste the oath without reading it anyway. That is the tradition. I mean to change tradition.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
What?? You mean I actually had to read the thing when I posted it? :P
Click to expand...
SILENCE! The Oligarchy will hear you and stamp you into the ground for not bleating like a sheep and doing what you are told! /irony

Point being that no one takes any oath seriously in these here parts of the woods. How dare you actually think an oath means anything around here!
 
I like this. Sure part of it similar to other documents but it's a big improvement. It's got my vote. Hehe what Oligarchy are you guys talking about, no such thing exists :p
 
I don't see anything wrong with the current oath as written. Will not support.
 
Sanctaria:
I don't see anything wrong with the current oath as written. Will not support.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of difference in the implications of this oath in comparison to the existing oath. If you don't understand the not-so-subtle differences, I suggest you speak to the person for whom I wrote and submitted this bill for her explanation of what makes it different.

Frankly, I'm tired of trying to explain rational things to irrational and/or deliberately obtuse people who really don't want to see any improvement in the region or really want to see democracy in the region.

So, talk to the hand.
 
I just think the modification of the oath that I am proposing is actually better worded, removes arguments concerning 'conscientious objections' that may arise and also puts each element "Region, Constitution, Law" in the technically appropriate order.

Reduced to neutral terms, it obliges RA Members to bear allegiance to the Region, The Constitution, and obey the laws, but it adds in the more polite elements of not doing harm to others in the region and to defend the Region/Consitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

I had considered a clause, as a passing thought, that required RA Members to bear primary allegiance to TNP, but thought better of that considering the over-lapping allegiances that some members could possibly have.
 
Romanoffia:
I just think the modification of the oath that I am proposing is actually better worded, removes arguments concerning 'conscientious objections' that may arise and also puts each element "Region, Constitution, Law" in the technically appropriate order.

Reduced to neutral terms, it obliges RA Members to bear allegiance to the Region, The Constitution, and obey the laws, but it adds in the more polite elements of not doing harm to others in the region and to defend the Region/Consitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

I had considered a clause, as a passing thought, that required RA Members to bear primary allegiance to TNP, but thought better of that considering the over-lapping allegiances that some members could possibly have.
Click to expand...
:agree: This emote is so useful
 
I don't agree with amending the oath to include conscientious objections. I've said that before elsewhere. So my disagreeing with you isn't being irrational or obtuse, and I do understand why you and others want it amended, I just don't agree.

So, as I said, I don't support amending the oath.

Also, if you consider me irrational or obtuse (and that I would have opposed this for no reason), then why PM me (and others presumably) to comment here?

Anyway, sorry but I am not going to support this or any other attempt to modify an already stringent and more than adequate oath.
 
Sanctaria:
I don't agree with amending the oath to include conscientious objections. I've said that before elsewhere. So my disagreeing with you isn't being irrational or obtuse, and I do understand why you and others want it amended, I just don't agree.

So, as I said, I don't support amending the oath.

Also, if you consider me irrational or obtuse (and that I would have opposed this for no reason), then why PM me (and others presumably) to comment here?

Anyway, sorry but I am not going to support this or any other attempt to modify an already stringent and more than adequate oath. I also do not take any offence at all if someone is reluctant or refuses to support a given bill or not. However, I do like to hear objections to proposed legislation which may expose either the shortcomings or errors of proposed legislation. Rational and objective listening to a given debate or issue is the basis of civilised actions which is something somewhat lacking around here and something I openly admit I am guilty of in several instances.
Click to expand...
I understand why you might disagree with the conscientious objection issue.

Let's look at it this way, I don't remember who said it recently in some thread somewhere ( I'm too lazy to look up the attribution) but the statement was to the effect that the act of disobeying a law does not in and of itself amount to a criminal act. It does if someone is demanded to be obedient to the law.

The term obedience to the law as it is in our present oath means that there can be absolutely no excuse for disobeying a law, even if that law is patently unconstitutional or a violation of the BOR. As the oath stands now, if someone violates a law, the oat states that obedience to the law is required. So, disobedience to a law is not a legitimate way to test the constitutionality of a law because disobedience to the law is an automatic conviction without any constitutional test of the law. A creative AG could argue that point and would actually be able to prove it despite there being a violation of constitutional rights.

Also, I reiterate that one's loyalty should be to uphold the Constitution and defend the Region against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Under the current oath, there is absolutely no requirement that someone actually do that. This legitimises the act of deliberately using the Laws and Constitution to nullify, destroy or otherwise thwart the Constitution or over-throw legitimate government. That has indeed happened before in this region.

The term obedience has a somewhat authoritarian ring to it in context. And the current oath isn't very stringent at all because it is fairly nebulous on one hand, serves no purpose other than to demand obedience to the government and the law even if government and law go awry and does nothing to require people to actually defend the region against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

And besides, the proposed oath change is more eloquent in meaning and more elegant (in the sense of being gracefully concise and simple as well as admirably succinct) in construction.

Then there's the issue that the current oath sounds like it was constructed for use in a secondary school Student Senate.

I do not consider you irrational or obtuse as an individual. I usually reserve those terms for 'group think' situation in which groups or collectives act mindlessly as a unit.

I PMed a select group of people that I believed to be more open to objective thinking to bring attention to this proposal. Too many times large numbers of RA members seem to never actually be aware of what is being debated because many members of the RA seem to constantly vote 'abstain' just for legal requirements. So, considering that assumption (be it right or wrong) I make the assumption that more rational debate tends to occur if people are aware that a debate is even going on.

You also have no cause to apologise for not supporting this bill nor do you have any need to explain that stance to me or anyone else.
 
So... your solution to "disobeying the law is a crime because it is an oath violation" is to make disobeying the law not an oath violation and therefore not a crime at all?

And this is supposed to promote good behavior and not encourage people to flagrantly violate the Legal Code while remaining within the requirements of the Constitution?

Well, it's certainly a novel approach...
 
SillyString:
So... your solution to "disobeying the law is a crime because it is an oath violation" is to make disobeying the law not an oath violation and therefore not a crime at all?

And this is supposed to promote good behavior and not encourage people to flagrantly violate the Legal Code while remaining within the requirements of the Constitution?

Well, it's certainly a novel approach...
Click to expand...
Let me think about your wording of those questions, just to make sure I actually am reading them correctly...

Thinking about your point concerning "disobeying the law is crime because it is an oath violation" right now. That would probably depend upon the nature of the law being disobeyed. Disobedience to a given law is generally, in fact always a criminal act provided a conviction results from charges arising from such obedience.

For instance, taking Alunya's (for whom this bill is submitted for debate) point of view that since we have a State Religion everyone, by the current oath (obedience to the law), everyone is legally bound to recognise a given State Religion. Refusing to recognise said religion would be an act of disobedience to the law. As such, it is conceivable that one could be prosecuted for violating the law by simply stating that, "I refuse to recognise the official state religion".

Of course, it would be idiocy to prosecute someone for refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the State Religion because such a prosecution would violate the BOR (and the law concerning State Religion itself).

Violating one's oath could be construed as dereliction of duty, or in some instances, possibly Treason depending upon how one violated the oath and what specific action was committed.

And this is supposed to promote good behavior and not encourage people to flagrantly violate the Legal Code while remaining within the requirements of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

What difference does it make? People flagrantly violate the legal code all the time. And, they get away with it, almost all the time.

The modified oath is not intended nor will have the effect of encouraging people to flagrantly violate the Legal Code. It will, in fact, encourage people to make sure that what is asked of them in legal terms is actually in agreement with the Constitution.

For example (and you should know this already): Suppose someone finds that a specific law is morally reprehensible to their sensibilities. Now suppose someone tried to file suit to prove that the law is in fact morally reprehensible, unconscionable and possibly a violation of the Constitution or BOR. Such a person would be SOL as they have no standing because the law hasn't forced them into a situation whereby they violate a law and get prosecuted for it.

In a constitutional system in which the Legal Code is subordinate to a Constitution, you simply cannot challenge a law without actually having violated that law.

So, let's look at a firm example of this. Say a law is passed by the RA as an act of "Democracy" and "The Will of The People", yet that law is clearly in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The RA is completely at liberty to pass entirely unconstitutional laws as an expression of "Democracy" and "The Will of The People"

Now, there are only three ways by which the law can be over-turned:

1. By legislative repeal. Of course anyone who proposes such a repeal would be tagged as "Going against the Will of The People" as expressed by the passage of the law by the RA.

2. Judicial Review - by actually violating the law, causing the violator to be prosecuted for the violation and then having the Court Decide upon the constitutionality of a given law. As such, no law is unconstitutional unless challenged by someone who has standing and the Court over-turns the law, and which means considering we have no civil code, all violations are criminal. Therefore, failing Legislative Repeal, the only way to challenge a law is to actually prosecute someone for violating that law.

3. Executive review - the AG, provided that the AG positions is properly placed as part of the Executive Branch in either a real or de facto way, can refuse to prosecute a violation of said law thus nullifying the law altogether on a case-by-case consideration. This doesn't really over-turn the law but simply expresses the AG's desire not to prosecute in a particular instance.

Now, if an oath demands obedience to the law as an absolute, it implies that one is guilty until proven innocent and places the burden of proof on the defendant who is automatically guilty of one crime or another by simply violating the oath as it is now written.

Another example would be if a member of the NPA was given an unlawful order. If they obey the unlawful order of a superior they are guilty of a crime. If they refuse to obey an unlawful order then they are guilty of insubordination and a violation of their oath.

Again, returning to your contention that this new oath would encourage people to flagrantly violate the legal code, you could not be any more incorrect. In the proposed oath is the following 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 is a positive law principle: one must obey and enforce the laws, and act in an impartial way ("I will do right to all manner of people, etc.,") that does not reflect personal affection or illwill. This prohibits individuals from either using the Law as a personal hammer or crafting laws to act to the same effect.

The oath I propose includes the unique quality of requiring people to act in terms of their RA actions in a fashion that is impartial and un-personal without bias for personal gain or revenge.

What could be a more just requirement for RA members, or, for that matter, any person holding a government position?
 
Your proposed oath doesn't require people to either obey or enforce the law, as embodied in the Legal Code.

In fact, it allows people to completely ignore all clauses of the Legal Code and do whatever they want, as long as it's not something covered by the Constitution.

Under your oath, the NPA could raid regions and grief freely, because banning natives is not a crime listed in the criminal code. If two justices recused themselves from a case, the remaining justice could refuse to appoint hearing officers and simply make determinations on their own, because not appointing hearing officers is not a crime listed in the criminal code. The Executive Branch would be free to ban nations from the region prior to a trial without informing the Court, or informing the banned nation of any criminal proceedings against them. Abstentions cast in an election could be used for or against candidates and skew the results of elections. Election Commissioners could run in the elections they were commissioning, and could arbitrarily choose to keep people off the ballot. Election Commissioners could, moreover, run elections according to whatever time table they felt like, and count the votes however they wanted. Elections, in general, could happen or not whenever the Delegate felt like having them happen. The Vice Delegate would be free to hand out membership to the Security Council willy-nilly, without applying influence/endorsement requirements or seeking the approval of the RA. The Speaker could admit/deny anybody they felt like to/from the RA, without VD or admin security check or RA vote on any denials. They could also decide not to remove members from the RA, just because. The Executive branch would cease to be bound in any way by FOIA, or the Mandatory Ministries Act.

All of these legal requirements are enshrined within the Legal Code, not the Constitution, and your proposed oath releases nations from any obligations to the Legal Code.
 
SillyString:
Your proposed oath doesn't require people to either obey or enforce the law, as embodied in the Legal Code.

In fact, it allows people to completely ignore all clauses of the Legal Code and do whatever they want, as long as it's not something covered by the Constitution.

Under your oath, the NPA could raid regions and grief freely, because banning natives is not a crime listed in the criminal code. If two justices recused themselves from a case, the remaining justice could refuse to appoint hearing officers and simply make determinations on their own, because not appointing hearing officers is not a crime listed in the criminal code. The Executive Branch would be free to ban nations from the region prior to a trial without informing the Court, or informing the banned nation of any criminal proceedings against them. Abstentions cast in an election could be used for or against candidates and skew the results of elections. Election Commissioners could run in the elections they were commissioning, and could arbitrarily choose to keep people off the ballot. Election Commissioners could, moreover, run elections according to whatever time table they felt like, and count the votes however they wanted. Elections, in general, could happen or not whenever the Delegate felt like having them happen. The Vice Delegate would be free to hand out membership to the Security Council willy-nilly, without applying influence/endorsement requirements or seeking the approval of the RA. The Speaker could admit/deny anybody they felt like to/from the RA, without VD or admin security check or RA vote on any denials. They could also decide not to remove members from the RA, just because. The Executive branch would cease to be bound in any way by FOIA, or the Mandatory Ministries Act.

All of these legal requirements are enshrined within the Legal Code, not the Constitution, and your proposed oath releases nations from any obligations to the Legal Code.
Click to expand...
Your statements are categorically either a misunderstanding or a deliberate misrepresentation of the proposed Bill with the intent of influencing the low-information crowd who rarely if ever read proposed legislation, jump on a political bandwago and vote accordingly.

It does not allow people to completely ignore classes of the Legal Code, etc.,,,. In fact, it makes people more likely not to go and violate laws.

I suggest you re-read the proposed bill and tell me exactly where in the oath it permits people to violate the law willy-nilly. As a novel idea, I want everyone who is planning to vote either way on this Bill to actually read the Bill and make up their own minds.

The proposed oath, in fact requires people to put the TNP Constitution and the Region at the top of their list of things to to which to render their allegiance. Perhaps further enshrinement of the Constitution and the Supreme Law of The Region in the oath is a dangerous idea in your view?
 
It's very simple.

The Constitution is not the Legal Code. There is nothing in your proposed oath that obligates people to obey the Legal Code - and there is nothing in the Constitution obligating the same. Requiring people to obey the Constitution does not require them to obey the Legal Code. Your proposal removes the requirement to obey the Legal Code, thereby releasing people from any obligation to do so or legal consequences for refusing to.
 
SillyString:
It's very simple.

The Constitution is not the Legal Code. There is nothing in your proposed oath that obligates people to obey the Legal Code - and there is nothing in the Constitution obligating the same. Requiring people to obey the Constitution does not require them to obey the Legal Code. Your proposal removes the requirement to obey the Legal Code, thereby releasing people from any obligation to do so or legal consequences for refusing to.
Click to expand...
Again, you are mistaken in your understanding of the purpose of this modified oath bill. Let me detail what you have overlooked.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of The North Pacific. All laws must conform to the Constitution, the Constitution being the Supreme Law of The North Pacific.

The Legal Code is subservient to and holds an inferior (in structural terms) position on the hierarchy of structure in Constitutional systems. The Legal Code must conform to the Constitution, the Constitution does not have to conform to the Legal Code. That is how we assure that unconstitutional laws can be challenged, altered or abolished altogether. That is how a Constitutional-Parliamentary system with checks and balances works.

Requiring people to have allegiance (notice how I do not say 'obedience') to the Constitution requires people to not only assure that the laws they pass are in conformity with the precepts and principles of the Constitution, but that the Constitution is to be enforced, not only as an act of government, but as a responsibility of every citizen.

This Oath change affirms and instils in the People who take it, the duty and obligation to render their allegiance to the Constitution and to assure that the laws are in conformity of the Constitution.

The oath change affirms the Spirit and Principle under which The Constitution of The North Pacific was instituted: Government is the servant of the People and not it's master. It reminds people that that the cost of individual and collective Freedom and Liberty is Eternal Vigilance and that it is the Duty and Obligation of every citizen of this region to assure that the government is always restrained within its constitutional cage and never becomes the master of the People, but remains it's servant.

The existing oath as it stands makes the arrogant assumption that the obedience to the law is assured by simply demanding obedience as though the people were functions of and servants of the State. The were a word for assuming that a government demand for obedience to the law is to be a given; it is called hubris.

On the other hand, if you have an oath that affirms the fact that the People are their own masters and that the government is their servant, then it is much more likely that people, as individuals, will seek to preserve their own personal Liberties and Rights rather than to sit back, be lazy, and make the dreadful assumption that the government will do it for them. People must be reminded that all governments naturally tend towards tyranny if left to its own devises. A well informed RA/Electorate (one in the same thing for our purposes) is the best vanguard against decay, apathy and eventual tyranny which are the natural ends of governments which are unrestrained by an informed populace.
 
Roman, supposing that someone did one of the things that SillyString asserts (correctly, in my reading) would become legal by removing the obligation to obey the laws from the oath. What do you envision happening to them under the new oath?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Roman, supposing that someone did one of the things that SillyString asserts (correctly, in my reading) would become legal by removing the obligation to obey the laws from the oath. What do you envision happening to them under the new oath?
Click to expand...
Silly String's assertions are an unintended straw-man on her part, which is not her fault but a fault of opposing any and all legislation by me, regardless of how logical or rational that proposed legislation is.

The Oath I propose doesn't encourage people to disobey the laws. It encourages them to adhere to the moral assertion that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Region to which one owes allegiance.

Under the now oath, it puts the primacy of the Constitution and its Principles in the fore. It gives people a heads-up concerning the principles we, as a region, are promoting and preserving by the very existence of the Constitution of TNP.

Let's look at how I constructed the modified oath, with a point by point commentary:


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
Click to expand...

This affirms that the person agreeing to the oath has the duty to support the Constitution against anyone who wishes to overthrow the Consitution, whether they be a foreign or domestic threat and that any changes they wish to support should be done according to the Constitution of TNP. It directly implies that one will not engage in insurrection or revolution against the lawfully constituted government. It binds individuals to adhere to the principle that one must support the Constitution in the face of actions by others, or the government, for that matter, to subvert the Constitution, the BOR and the principles both were founded upon.



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 illwil.
Click to expand...

This affirms that a given nation/person will hold, as a citizen of this region, allegiance to the Region, Constitution (including the BOR as part of the Constitution) and Lawfully Constituted Government as one's primary goal as a citizen of TNP. This requires citizens to challenge in a lawful manner actions by the government or individuals that violate the Constitution and Lawful/Constitutional actions of the Government of TNP. It is the duty of the people as individuals to stand up to incursions upon Individual Liberties and Rights and to guard against Government over-reach in an orderly and constitutionally legitimate fashion. It makes the People as individuals the guardians of their own freedom and charges them to act to affect that end.

It also affirms that assignors to the oath act in a fashion that is without bias or with malice, and to act in an objective fashion free and devoid of any personal affections or illwill. In simple terms, act in a civilised manner free of violence or violation of the Constitution or legally constituted government.


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...

Straight forward and simple. Says what it means. Don't commit treason or revolution. If one wants change, then do it constitutionally, not by force or coercion and be civil about it.


To be honest with you, I think the oath I propose is more strict than the existing oath and, at the same time, encourages people to be the guardians of their own liberties and well-being. If you make people aware that they are the guardians of their own liberties and freedoms, then they are more likely to be concerned with them and take charge of themselves.

This oath brings these issues to their attention and makes them aware that they are their own keepers, that the Government is there to serve them and not the other way around, and that if they ever forget this fact, then they assign themselves to be the willing victims of a tyranny of their own inaction.

If you want people to be active, then you must make them aware of their own self-interest and objectivity and make them a part of it instead of sitting back and letting someone else make those decisions as to their own well being.
 
Romanoffia:
The Oath I propose doesn't encourage people to disobey the laws.
Click to expand...
I never said it did. I said it allows them to without fear of punishment. I do assert that allowing people to break laws without fear of punishments is a tacit encouragement to do so.

You did not answer COE's question.

Suppose your oath passed, and the Speaker began refusing new applicants to the RA despite them passing VD and admin security checks. What crime could they be charged with?
 
There is a hole in the legal documents, as the constitution itself does not mentions the laws as "subservient" to it (while it should, IMO).

As such, mentioning the Legal Code or the Laws in a Oath seems required, just to make sure no holes are left open... Likewise, you could also modify the constitution to make sure no obvious loopholes are there (perhaps Article 1 could include BILLS and DUTIES and the LAWS being the DUTIES) and then swearing to the Constitution would already imply following all the laws...
 
SillyString:
Romanoffia:
The Oath I propose doesn't encourage people to disobey the laws.
Click to expand...
I never said it did. I said it allows them to without fear of punishment. I do assert that allowing people to break laws without fear of punishments is a tacit encouragement to do so.

You did not answer COE's question.

Suppose your oath passed, and the Speaker began refusing new applicants to the RA despite them passing VD and admin security checks. What crime could they be charged with?
Click to expand...
In that particular instance, you would charge the Speaker with:

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.


The victims of such an action on the part of the Speaker would have standing as a basis to bring such charges any number of BOR violations including but not limited to item 5 of the BOR.
 
How could you charge the speaker with a violation of their oath when their oath has not been violated? Refusing to admit members to the RA is not a violation of either the Constitution or the Bill of rights.
 
I don't think this is ever going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The term allegiance implies loyalty to the State, and it's Laws. The conundrum here is a member decided that it could not adhere to the Legal Code vis a vis 'state religion' (no.. I'm not stirring that pot again). While it is predominantly a moral objection, it is nonetheless a violation (technically) of the RA oath. That was the impetus for this bill.

SillyString:
I said it allows them to without fear of punishment.
Click to expand...
Unless I'm mistaken, if you commit a crime under the Legal Code, you will be brought up on charges (regardless of the oath). The current oath only mentions loss of voting privileges as a punishment. Having said that, the definition of 'gross misconduct' may have to be tweaked if this passes. It's a crime that is tied to an oath. Mind you, I still think allegiance is sufficient with regard to the Legal Code.
 
falapatorius:
Unless I'm mistaken, if you commit a crime under the Legal Code, you will be brought up on charges (regardless of the oath).
Click to expand...
Yes, that's correct - the problem is that with the exception of specifically enumerated crimes, disobeying the Legal Code isn't itself a crime without an oath saying that it is (which is why, if the Speaker doesn't have to swear an oath to obey the laws, you can't convict them of gross misconduct if they blatantly disregard them).
 
Silly String:
Yes, that's correct - the problem is that with the exception of specifically enumerated crimes, disobeying the Legal Code isn't itself a crime without an oath saying that it is (which is why, if the Speaker doesn't have to swear an oath to obey the laws, you can't convict them of gross misconduct if they blatantly disregard them).
Click to expand...
I think I see what you're getting at.

BOR:
6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code.
Click to expand...
I think it would only be RA members affected by this change though, since the Speaker takes an Oath of Office as defined by:

Constitution:
1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Justices, and Attorney General.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
Click to expand...
and:

Legal Code:
1. All government officials will take the Oath of Office below before assuming their role within the government of The North Pacific.


I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...
furthermore,

BOR:
5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.
Click to expand...
I will grant the crime of gross misconduct might be affected by this change (at least as it pertains to RA members), so perhaps that needs to be addressed by this proposal.
 
That's true - the government official oath is different from the RA oath, and unless reference to the legal code were removed from it, it would still cover general misconduct. So I was wrong about that, and this does only apply to RA members - but I'm glad you see what my concern there is! :)
 
Silly String:
That's true - the government official oath is different from the RA oath, and unless reference to the legal code were removed from it, it would still cover general misconduct. So I was wrong about that, and this does only apply to RA members - but I'm glad you see what my concern there is!
Click to expand...
It's a legitimate concern. To be honest, I knew this was going to be a sticky issue from the start. I do like the idea of updating the oath, but the language has to be very precise. I think we can agree that amendments should strengthen existing Laws, correct any real/potential inequalities, and close as many loopholes as possible. It's a process (albeit a painful and sometimes controversial process :lol: ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top