{a question for the regional assembly} How is this clause in the Bill of Rights to be implemented?

[Flemingovia]

I have a question for the Regional Assembly, as the sovereign authority in TNP.

I have a question about the bill of rights. Clause 2 of the BOR gives every citizen the following right:

2. ... Each Nation has the right ... to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances.

My question is, if grievance is with the court, how is this right to be exercised? What powers do the government, and especially the delegate, have to provide "redress of grievences"? Does this clause actually have any legal force?

If it does not, does it have any purpose in the Bill of Rights?

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

At the time the BoR was drafted, there was a theory some had that off-site governmental forums were totally outside the game and that the regional delegate was not part of an off-site government.

The clause is a general statement that grievances can be taken to the government, which includes the Delegate. It's not meant to mean only the Delegate, but rather, the government in whatever form it is organized.

 

[Flemingovia]

At the time the BoR was drafted, there was a theory some had that off-site governmental forums were totally outside the game and that the regional delegate was not part of an off-site government.

The clause is a general statement that grievances can be taken to the government, which includes the Delegate. It's not meant to mean only the Delegate, but rather, the government in whatever form it is organized.

Yes, I understand fully the reasons for having the right stated.

But my question concerns how the right can be implemented.

"General statements" only put bread on the table when they translate into clear processes. At the moment I am unclear, myself, how i access this right.

the BOR states I have the right to redress of grievences. I am supposed to be able to petition the government, including the delegate. How? What rights does the delegate have to provide me with redress?

If this is just meaningless waffle, then should it even be in the BOR?

 

[SillyString]

I don't think this is entirely actionless waffle, but it's not the most actionable wording.

The impact that I see is that it grants all residents the right to speak up about their grievances, and to ask members of the government to address them within the scope of their power to do so. That is, a resident has the right to complain to the delegate about a minister and ask the delegate to fire them, or to complain to the RA and ask them to recall a government official, or to complain to the Court and ask them to rule. It's taking the powers of the government bodies as laid out in the Constitution and Legal Code, and saying that residents have the legal right to ask those bodies to use their powers.

What it doesn't do, and can't do, is give powers that don't exist. Legally, the Delegate is not empowered to overrule the Court, or to remove them from office unilaterally, or ban their nations from the region (except in really fringe cases), or really anything else. So bringing a grievance to the Delegate under this clause has no tangible functions - not unless the Delegate brings that grievance to the RA to urge a recall or a legislative overturn. What a resident can do is bring their grievance to the RA directly, or bring it to the Court itself (depending on the issue they may be best served by waiting for a new Court to do this).

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I think this clause means that we can't pass laws that prohibit nations of TNP from seeking redress of grievances, such as restricting requests for review to citizens only, or removing posting privileges from residents.

 

[Romanoffia]

I have a question for the Regional Assembly, as the sovereign authority in TNP.

I have a question about the bill of rights. Clause 2 of the BOR gives every citizen the following right:

2. ... Each Nation has the right ... to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances.

My question is, if grievance is with the court, how is this right to be exercised? What powers do the government, and especially the delegate, have to provide "redress of grievences"? Does this clause actually have any legal force?

If it does not, does it have any purpose in the Bill of Rights?

There are three ways to redress grievances involving the three branches of government. But this would be based upon the RL references to the US Constitution, the Constitutions of the States of Kentucky and South Carolina (I'm from North Carolina, so I am not biased as I am not a South Carolidiot - This was meant as light-hearted cajoling and sarcasm and possibly irony).

OK, IC and RP hat on...

As a former Justice, I would proffer this answer:

If one has a grievance against the Court in particular, it would be presented to the Court by argument first. Then it would be presented to the Delegate for redress according to whatever constitutional powers the Delegate could possibly apply under the Constitution and Legal Code. Simultaneously, it could be applied to the Regional Assembly for a change in the either or both the Legal Code or Constitution(the problem here is that any RA legislation would not be retroactive by logic of constitution or legal code). If that isn't sufficiently speedy to remedy a really pressing matter, a Recall of any or all of the Justices could be applied and an appeal to the new Justices could be made.

The Delegate has no real authority over the Court other than the Delegate's clearly defined authority delegated to him by TNP Constitution. SOL there. Call it a flaw in checks and balances under the Constitution. No authority to pardon or issue executive order exists, and thank God that is so. The Delegate can only act according to his or her delegated authorities under the Constitution.

The clause in question actually has force by the fact that it actually exists. That does not mean that there are specifically defined procedures, but that one has access to any existing or other means, no matter how convoluted they may be, to petition for redress of grievances. The Constitution is a tool to be applied not only for reigning in government but also to compel the government to action.

Specifically, the powers the government and Delegate have to provide for such redresses requires those entities to be creative and use the Constitution as a tool to that end. It also requires the petitioner to be creative and crafty.

It all comes down to two things:


1. The Government has all authority and everything emanates from and is dictated by the Government.

In this case, your a SOL (Shit Out of Luck) because the people are function of the government.


2. The Constitution limits government and the ultimate authority lies in the people who can legitimately change government at will according to the Constitutional limitations in place.

In this case, the Constitution limits government and the people can change government, or in simple terms, petitions for redress of grievances. Locke, Hume, et al.

The right to petition for a redress of grievances is part and parcel of TNP Constitutional principle. It is the principle of any responsive government that exists under the authority delegated to it by the people. If the people abdicate self government, the people get what they deserve, which is subservience to the state and to become a function of the state.

Whether or not there is a specific process for handling a redress of grievances is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the People have the right to legislate or otherwise alter, or abolish and replace a governmental system with a system more appropriate for their present and future condition.

You are creative. I'm sure you can find a way to affect change under the current system.