Question for the Delegate

[Alunya]

Dear Delegate r3naissanc3r:

Pursuant to Chapter 6, Section 6.2, Clause 17 of the Cofified Law of The North Pacific, I am asking you, as Delegate of The North Pacific, about the obeyability of a certain law of The North Pacific.

As you are well aware, I have long held that Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is an obeyable law in The North Pacific. As such, it is my opinion that it can be obeyed or disobeyed.

Opinions by others have been offered here, here and here that claim that the clause in question cannot be disobeyed.

Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 is reproduced below for your convenience:

14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the religion and church of The North Pacific.

Please be so kind as to inform me as to whether or not the above clause possesses the characteristic of being obeyable.

The question is asked as a matter of due diligence. Your Citizenship Bill, if enacted, would require an oath of obedience to the laws of The North Pacific to attain and retain citizenship in The North Pacific.

I wish to ascertain if Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is a member of a class of law that lacks the characteristic of being obeyable and therefore would be exempt from the provision in the aforementioned oath requiring obedience to her [The North Pacific's] laws.

Thank you in advance for addressing my inquiry.

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[r3naissanc3r]

I don't want to answer in terms of "obeyability", because the term is ill-defined. However, I'll answer in an indirect manner:

Laws are enforced by our court through criminal trials and reviews. I do not believe the court could find you guilty of any offense, including gross misconduct, the offense relating to the obedience requirements the oath imposes, for any actions relating to 7.3.14 and your objections to it that you take as a private citizen.

Furthermore, I do not believe the court quash any action relating to 7.3.14 and your objections to it that you have taken as a private citizen. Likewise, I do not believe the court could compel you to take any such actions as a private citizen.

I am specifying "private citizen" here because, should you become elected to an office that empowers you to take actions with a region-wide scope (e.g., delegate), then I could conceive of scenaria where the court's powers would be applicable.

 

[Alunya]

Very well, then. In for a penny, in for a pound.

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[Scandigrad]

Considering the RA is technically part of the government of The North Pacific, does that mean that all RA members are subject to this?

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Very well, then. In for a penny, in for a pound.

>^,,^<
Alunya

Ut oh Olveys gonna have an aneurysm at the custom additions to the oath!!

 

[r3naissanc3r]

To clarify a couple of things. First, what I posted earlier are merely my own opinion and does not have any legal force. I have no control over what cases the Attorney General chooses to prosecute, and as I am not a Justice I have no influence on decisions made by the Court.

Second, my post referred to actions you would take after you had successfully joined the RA. In my opinion, you cannot have a valid RA application with an altered oath, and I certainly do not want my previous post to be misconstrued as encouraging the posting of altered oaths.

---

Scandigrad, I am not sure what you are referring to.

 

[Alunya]

Well, I asked you as Delegate of The North Pacific pursuant to Chapter 6, Section 6.2, Clause 17 of the Cofified Law of The North Pacific, so I think it is very reasonable to expect that you would reply as such.

It's okay if Olvey rejects the application. It gives me the necessary standing before the Court.

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[SillyString]

I've still never seen even a single explanation of how one could disobey this law.

But posting an altered oath is in and of itself grounds for rejection of an RA application, just as applying with a nation not in TNP is. I don't think this gives you the standing you think it does.

 

[Lord Nwahs]

I've still never seen even a single explanation of how one could disobey this law.

But posting an altered oath is in and of itself grounds for rejection of an RA application, just as applying with a nation not in TNP is. I don't think this gives you the standing you think it does.

Pretty much this.

 

[Alunya]

Let's give this one more try here.

I am going to present to you two oaths, the first called Alunya's RA Oath, and the second called the Standard RA Oath.

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of Alunya, pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws with the exception of Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 adopting Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific, 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.

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.

Put aside for the moment the fact that only the Standard RA Oath is accepted in applications for the Regional Assembly under the Codified Law of The North Pacific. My question relates to the meaning of the Standard RA Oath, and for this purpose it will be helpful to draw a comparison between Alunya's RA Oath and the Standard RA Oath.

Pursuant to Chapter 6, Section 6.2, Clause 17 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific, I am asking you, as Delegate of The North Pacific, the following question concerning the meaning of the Regional Assembly Oath (Standard RA Oath):

Is Alunya's RA Oath a re-statement of the Standard RA Oath, or instead does some measure of obedience attach to Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific, adopting Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific?

Please answer in your capacity as the Head of Government of The North Pacific. Thank you.

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[SillyString]

Alunya, maybe you could do us all a favor and lay out a scenario wherein you disobey the law in question?

 

[r3naissanc3r]

Let's give this one more try here.

I am going to present to you two oaths, the first called Alunya's RA Oath, and the second called the Standard RA Oath.

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of Alunya, pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws with the exception of Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 adopting Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific, 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.

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.

Put aside for the moment the fact that only the Standard RA Oath is accepted in applications for the Regional Assembly under the Codified Law of The North Pacific. My question relates to the meaning of the Standard RA Oath, and for this purpose it will be helpful to draw a comparison between Alunya's RA Oath and the Standard RA Oath.

Pursuant to Chapter 6, Section 6.2, Clause 17 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific, I am asking you, as Delegate of The North Pacific, the following question concerning the meaning of the Regional Assembly Oath (Standard RA Oath):

Is Alunya's RA Oath a re-statement of the Standard RA Oath, or instead does some measure of obedience attach to Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific, adopting Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific?

Please answer in your capacity as the Head of Government of The North Pacific. Thank you.

>^,,^<
Alunya

Once again, I am not going to use the term "obedience". I think my previous answer with respect to that aspect of your question was clear enough.

The Legal Code is clear about what oath must be used for RA applications. Any oath that is not exactly identical to the one required by the Legal Code, even if the changes do not make any semantic or practical difference, renders the respective citizenship application invalid.

 

[Alunya]

Suppose I, Alunya, swear the following oath and place it in the Regional Assembly Membership Applications thread:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of Alunya, 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.

The oath requires one to pledge obedience to the laws of The North Pacific:

..., pledge ..., obedience to her laws, ...

Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Laws of The North Pacific is a law of The North Pacific:

14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the religion and church of The North Pacific.

I declare that I shall not obey Ch. 7, Sec. 7.3, Clause 14:

I, Alunya, shall not and will not obey Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 adopting Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific.

Would I, Alunya, be breaking the oath?

[ ] Yes or [ ] No (Check one and only one answer.)

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[Alunya]

Alunya, maybe you could do us all a favor and lay out a scenario wherein you disobey the law in question?

It isn't that I'm disobeying the law in question -- it is that I am not obeying it.

I've used the word disobeying in the sense that a general layperson would. Disobeying a law usually carries an active sense to it. Not obeying a law is more passive. But it is possible to do nothing and actively disobey a law -- loitering comes to mind. But technically, you are correct in that I am not disobeying this particular law; I'm refusing to obey it.

It is the Government of The North Pacific, through its Regional Assembly Membership Act oath, that is demanding of its Regional Assembly Members a pledge to obey the laws of The North Pacific, including the law in question. I haven't seen anything, anywhere, that indicates that this particular law simply cannot be obeyed. So I'm assuming that somehow, in some fashion, the Government of The North Pacific does intend its Regional Assembly Members to obey it. Such obedience might be as simple as acquiescence to its meaning. Whatever that obedience is, I'm not giving it.

If obeying that particular law makes just as much sense as sailing it, please enlighten us. While I think that obedience in some manner does attach to that law (else one could accomplish its objective with a simple resolution), I'm willing to concede that I may be wrong. Maybe The North Pacific has laws that cannot be obeyed -- it is a strange place, after all.

Of course, my ability to not obey that law depends on whether or not it can even be obeyed at all, as the oath requires. Those are TNP's requirements, by the way, and not my own, so it seems only fair that I should ask TNP what they mean.

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[SillyString]

What actions can you undertake which will fail to obey this law? TNP is not a thought police.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

Suppose I, Alunya, swear the following oath and place it in the Regional Assembly Membership Applications thread:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of Alunya, 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.

The oath requires one to pledge obedience to the laws of The North Pacific:

..., pledge ..., obedience to her laws, ...

Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 of the Codified Laws of The North Pacific is a law of The North Pacific:

14. Flemingovianism shall be adopted as the religion and church of The North Pacific.

I declare that I shall not obey Ch. 7, Sec. 7.3, Clause 14:

I, Alunya, shall not and will not obey Chapter 7, Section 7.3, Clause 14 adopting Flemingovianism as the religion and church of The North Pacific.

Would I, Alunya, be breaking the oath?

[ ] Yes or [ ] No (Check one and only one answer.)

>^,,^<
Alunya

Since this thread was brought up in the RMB:

I have already sufficiently answered your inquiry in my first post in this thread.

You are looking for a yes or no answer to an inconsequential question. I do not want to get bogged down in a debate of theoretical interest only, especially since answering such questions is not my job. I would suggest that you pose the question to the Court, which is the body of government tasked with answering queries of this sort; or if you don't have standing to do so, you can petition the Attorney General's office to do so for you.

In my previous post, I gave you a clear answer about what matters: that I do not foresee any circumstances under which a court could enforce any penalties upon you for such a declaration. If you do not consider this helpful, then I'm sorry but that's as helpful as I am going to be.