Oath of Office Act
- Thread starter Alta
- Start date
Alta
TNPer
I've prepared a statement on the subject of why this bill is both necessary and good for TNP. I know it's sort of long, but I must ask that you read it.
I was a bit alarmed when I realized that ambassadors did not have to take the oath of office. I believe that they, too, should be held to that standard; I consider them to be government officials, as they officially represent the government in foreign regions, even if current general interpretation of the Legal Code does not. What of acting "only in the best interest of The North Pacific, unbiased by personal gain or loss?" What of using one's rights & powers "for the benefit of The North Pacific, and in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner?" What of not abusing one's power, or committing "misfeasance, malfeasance, nor misfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner?" How can we let our ambassadors - the sole representatives of our great region across the entire world - do such things? They should be held to just as high standards as any other government official. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that all government officials are held to high standards, as they should be when they are the faces of our region.
Furthermore, it is vitally important to note that since the Voting Rights Act passed, you need not be a citizen to be an ambassador or a member of the Executive Staff. Technically, you could become an Ambassador without taking any oath at all. Why do we have oaths? To prevent people from doing bad things. Why shouldn't that also apply to ambassadors and members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
Finally, taking an oath of office really isn't as tedious or difficult as many of you may at first think. If you have to take the MoFA oath, you have one week to copy & paste six sentences. If you don't do it because you aren't on once a week, I don't think you should be an ambassador. And if you don't do it because you don't want to commit to doing everything that is provided for in the oath, well, I'm not sure what you would object to without intending to misuse your office.
I was a bit alarmed when I realized that ambassadors did not have to take the oath of office. I believe that they, too, should be held to that standard; I consider them to be government officials, as they officially represent the government in foreign regions, even if current general interpretation of the Legal Code does not. What of acting "only in the best interest of The North Pacific, unbiased by personal gain or loss?" What of using one's rights & powers "for the benefit of The North Pacific, and in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner?" What of not abusing one's power, or committing "misfeasance, malfeasance, nor misfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner?" How can we let our ambassadors - the sole representatives of our great region across the entire world - do such things? They should be held to just as high standards as any other government official. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that all government officials are held to high standards, as they should be when they are the faces of our region.
Furthermore, it is vitally important to note that since the Voting Rights Act passed, you need not be a citizen to be an ambassador or a member of the Executive Staff. Technically, you could become an Ambassador without taking any oath at all. Why do we have oaths? To prevent people from doing bad things. Why shouldn't that also apply to ambassadors and members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
Finally, taking an oath of office really isn't as tedious or difficult as many of you may at first think. If you have to take the MoFA oath, you have one week to copy & paste six sentences. If you don't do it because you aren't on once a week, I don't think you should be an ambassador. And if you don't do it because you don't want to commit to doing everything that is provided for in the oath, well, I'm not sure what you would object to without intending to misuse your office.
david_
TNPer
Just a suggestion, you said "immediately preceding ratification." Firstly, passage might be more appropriate and also I would suggest that you use a more rigid time frame. For example, you could say "those who were members of the Ministry of foreign affairs in the month preceding passage ..." The reason for this is it would be hard to know what "immediately preceding" implies. For example, is 5 days immediately preceding? Is 10 days?
Or are you suggesting that all members "at the time of ratification" should do it?
Sorry, just trying to clear up my confusion
Or are you suggesting that all members "at the time of ratification" should do it?
Sorry, just trying to clear up my confusion
Malvad
TNPer
I do not see any reason for ambassadors to take oaths. Whether you believe it or not, ambassadors are not government officials. They are members of the executive staff and are monitored by the minister.
This would only serve as bureaucratic red tape to ambassadors. Would we need to post an oath for each reason we are an ambassador to? I'm an ambassador to three regions, serving in the positions faithfully, and I see no reason for me to post a separate oath for each. And as shown by r3n recently, oaths can be easily forgotten and cause more issues than they fix.
If I wanted to break TNP law, an oath would not stop me. It does not keep people from breaking the law, it is just a formal way to assume a position. The delegate, ministers, citizens, ambassadors, and residents are all subject to the laws of TNP whether they have taken an oath or not.
This would only serve as bureaucratic red tape to ambassadors. Would we need to post an oath for each reason we are an ambassador to? I'm an ambassador to three regions, serving in the positions faithfully, and I see no reason for me to post a separate oath for each. And as shown by r3n recently, oaths can be easily forgotten and cause more issues than they fix.
If I wanted to break TNP law, an oath would not stop me. It does not keep people from breaking the law, it is just a formal way to assume a position. The delegate, ministers, citizens, ambassadors, and residents are all subject to the laws of TNP whether they have taken an oath or not.
Sauceistan
TNPer
Idea is good, but I think this would be handled better by the Ministry itself, not enshrined in legislation. The NPA does the same thing, but their oath is not in the legal code and maintained by the Minister only.
Alta
TNPer
I was thinking something like "less than one planck time before ratification." But, yeah, I guess that could be open to a bit of interpretation. I'll fix that.david_:Just a suggestion, you said "immediately preceding ratification." Firstly, passage might be more appropriate and also I would suggest that you use a more rigid time frame. For example, you could say "those who were members of the Ministry of foreign affairs in the month preceding passage ..." The reason for this is it would be hard to know what "immediately preceding" implies. For example, is 5 days immediately preceding? Is 10 days?
Or are you suggesting that all members "at the time of ratification" should do it?
Sorry, just trying to clear up my confusion
david_:
Sauceistan:
I'd like to start my reply of all three of the above posts by responding to Malvad's last paragraph. Criminals don't care about laws. So, then, why should we have them at all? Why don't we all just abolish laws and live in anarchy? We both know that Somalia's lead isn't a great one to follow, but here's why:Malvad:
1) The absence of a law prohibiting an act encourages law-abiding citizens to engage in that act, for nothing will come of it.
2) Even if criminals do break the law, they can get punished for it, whereas if there is no law, they cannot be prosecuted.
Can you find anything in the Legal Code governing the Executive Staff? Can you find anything in the Constitution governing the Executive Staff? Can you find anything in the Bill of Rights governing the Executive Staff? I'm sorry, but I can't. Thus, I would argue, people could make a very strong case defending an abuse of power or indecency. Let's say I was going to try to somehow catapult my status in Australia (the region to which I am TNP's ambassador) into a coup for the Delegacy. Let's see what obstacles I'd face in the Criminal Code.
"'Treason' is defined as taking arms or providing material support to a group or region for the purpose of undermining or overthrowing the lawful government of The North Pacific or any of its treatied allies as governed by the Constitution." I'm good there.
"'Espionage' is defined as sharing information with a group or region when that act of sharing has not been legitimately sanctioned by the entity the information is gathered from, as limited by this section." I'm not sharing information; I'm just couping the Delegacy.
"'Election fraud' is defined as the willful deception of residents 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." There's no election fraud. There's not even an election in the first place.
"'Fraud' is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual." I plainly state that I am couping the Delegacy.
"'Crashing' is defined as any unauthorized action which could cause a forum to go out of service or lose information, including the deletion of posts, the deletion of a forum, spamming, or any other act of such kind." Still nothing there. I'll keep the forum up and running. I'll just simply ignore the thing.
"'Phishing' is defined as any attempts to gain access to off-site property controls or passwords by deception, especially by posing as administrators or moderators for any unauthorized use." I don't need passwords when I have a raider army.
"'Spamming' is defined as any action by non-region nationals to waste space or cause shock on any off-site property or regional message board to make it unusable." Once again, I'm not violating this, either. The RMB and forum may suddenly have a lot more activity, but I won't be the one who's spamming.
"'Proxying' is defined as use of a proxy server to render a forum user anonymous or any practice which allows a member multiple accounts." On the contrary, I'm making myself known. I'm broadcasting myself as Alta Italia, and I'm bragging that I just couped the Delegacy.
"Recruitment for other regions on the Regional Message board may be regulated or prohibited by Delegate Decree." Nope, I'm not recruiting anybody for Australia. Except raiders to help me, that is, but I'm certainly not going to plan a coup on a public RMB.
"'Conspiracy' is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code." Whether my plan was successful or not, I didn't break any laws or commit any crime, so, legally speaking, I'm not conspiring.
"'Gross Misconduct' is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence." Oh, now this is the big one. I did swear an oath when I became TNP's ambassador to Australia, but was it legally mandated? No. Thus, I'm not violating a legally mandated oath.
Chapter 1, Clause 1 of the Legal Code says, "No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any resident for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code." Thus, I would argue that I couldn't be tagged for anything if I, right now, couped the Delegacy of Australia. Certainly, that wouldn't be in good taste. But breaking a law? No. But what if this bill passes? I would not be upholding democracy. I would not be upholding freedom. I would not be upholding justice. I would not be using my powers in a "legal, responsible, and unbiased manner." I would be abusing my office, and by quite a bit, too. Simply put, I would be breaking my oath. I could be prosecuted for an act that is so obviously terrible and wrong. But in our current state? Not so much. There are so many things an ambassador could do - that was just the first example that popped into my head - that would be wrong, or an abuse of power, or acting without the best interest of TNP in mind. I think we should prevent that from happening. Once again, you may say that criminals break laws. But law-abiding citizens may exercise loopholes or gray areas, and criminals may be prosecuted for when they do break laws. That is why we shouldn't just live in anarchy. That is why places like the US or Australia or France or Italy or Malaysia are better than Somalia. We have laws, and for good reason. If a bill serves a good purpose, or closes a loophole, or prevents something bad from happening, even if nobody's tried that loophole out or tried to make something bad happen, I believe that we should pass it. And it is my firm belief that this bill does just that.
To Sauceistan: I must emphasize that "'Gross Misconduct' is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath." I can't stress enough that the oath must be legally mandated for a case on gross misconduct to be able to be brought about.
On Malvad's concern about multiple oaths for multiple ambassadorial posts: I've spent quite a while mulling that over, and I have decided that it would actually probably be better to just take one oath for as long as one is accepted into the MoFA. I will amend my bill to make that more clear.
On Malvad's anecdote about forgetting to take the oath: I have a simple solution for that. When McMasterdonia was Minister of Foreign Affairs, he sent out a "First Assignment" PM to each newly assigned ambassador. I'm sure this has continued in Egalotir's Ministry. The PM gives many instructions and tips and reminders. I think that Egalotir should simply remind each new ambassador to take an oath of office in that PM. That, I think, should alleviate simple forgetfulness. And, if the person still forgets, the Minister might let the ambassador receive multiple shots to take the oath, just like in r3n's case.
Thank you, though I hope I've changed your mind again with my response.Syrixia:
You get a whole week to do something that takes less than a minute. I don't see any red tape there. Ambassador reports take more than a minute to write. You have to check in at your assigned region for more than a minute a week. Copying & pasting a couple of sentences is not red tape, and it takes practically no time, especially compared to the enormously long time one has to actually take the oath.Egalotir:
Funkadelia
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- Funkadelia Island
Your argument shows why we make things illegal, but in my opinion has not justified why it is necessary to create an oath for the diplomatic corps.
Malvad
TNPer
I am not proposing anarchy. Whether you take an oath or not, you are under the authority of the laws of TNP. The executive staff in the constitution and legal code would be under the delegate's ability to establish ministries. As an ambassador you are still under the laws. The minister can recall you for actions in your region. That region could prosecute you and, depending on your actions, we can prosecute you.
An oath is not what binds you to the law. If that was how it worked, in real life nearly any citizen could break the law and not be prosecuted because they have not taken an oath of citizenship. An oath is a simple formality that does not establish the law and its reach.
An oath is not what binds you to the law. If that was how it worked, in real life nearly any citizen could break the law and not be prosecuted because they have not taken an oath of citizenship. An oath is a simple formality that does not establish the law and its reach.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I agree with Malvad.
D
Deleted User (Guest)
Guest
The argument put forward has been that if said ambassador were to use his diplomatic nation to take the delegacy of the region they are ambassador to then they have broken no laws of the North Pacific.
Of course they haven't. Diplomatic nations are not required by most regions. And by most, I mean that I cannot recall any region off of the top of my head which mandates ambassadors have a nation inside the region. I recall such a thing as optional.
Unless the region is treatied to TNP, what laws have been broken? Yes, it's bad form to attack your diplomatic or embassy partners, but it wouldn't be TNP doing it - just a random nation which just happens to be owned by a citizen of The North Pacific, and unless it falls into the criteria of it being a treaty ally of us, or where someone has used our flag to do so, I don't see why this debate exists.
Now were the person to fly TNP's flag whilst doing it and claim the region for TNP, then perhaps we could have something to waffle about in the RA and the Courts (No, that is not a challenge to anyone!), but as it stands I see absolutely zero reason for an oath of office for the diplomats.
In my experience as a Diplomat, as well as a Minister, I tend to avoid using oaths for my diplomats. Normally the region they are part of already has at least one other oath in their citizenship application or there are other ways to mandate behaviour. Again, not seeing why an oath is needed, like it or not, most Ambassadors do nothing more than post an update once a month and little beyond that.
Of course they haven't. Diplomatic nations are not required by most regions. And by most, I mean that I cannot recall any region off of the top of my head which mandates ambassadors have a nation inside the region. I recall such a thing as optional.
Unless the region is treatied to TNP, what laws have been broken? Yes, it's bad form to attack your diplomatic or embassy partners, but it wouldn't be TNP doing it - just a random nation which just happens to be owned by a citizen of The North Pacific, and unless it falls into the criteria of it being a treaty ally of us, or where someone has used our flag to do so, I don't see why this debate exists.
Now were the person to fly TNP's flag whilst doing it and claim the region for TNP, then perhaps we could have something to waffle about in the RA and the Courts (No, that is not a challenge to anyone!), but as it stands I see absolutely zero reason for an oath of office for the diplomats.
In my experience as a Diplomat, as well as a Minister, I tend to avoid using oaths for my diplomats. Normally the region they are part of already has at least one other oath in their citizenship application or there are other ways to mandate behaviour. Again, not seeing why an oath is needed, like it or not, most Ambassadors do nothing more than post an update once a month and little beyond that.
I don't think it makes sense to require an oath from ambassadors - particularly not specifically ambassadors. Members of the NPA are arguably better placed to cause problems abroad, and even the military has only a minister-instituted oath and not a legally mandated one.
I don't really see any major issues that an ambassador could cause on their own. If they're rude or insult their assigned location, they can be rebuked or fired and TNP can apologize - no harm done. If they commit some crime over there, again they can be fired and TNP can apologize. I can't think of any region we have relations with where an ambassador would be in a place to take the delegacy by force, or anything like that, so as long as TNP cares about maintaining relations with other regions... I think we're okay.
I could possibly get behind legislation saying that ambassadors (and NPA members, and maybe other executive staff?) have to be citizens... but there's also a strong argument that the ability to participate in things right away without needing to wait up to two weeks is a huge factor in getting people involved and keeping them there, and that instituting a delay will reduce our ability to get new people to stick around.
I don't really see any major issues that an ambassador could cause on their own. If they're rude or insult their assigned location, they can be rebuked or fired and TNP can apologize - no harm done. If they commit some crime over there, again they can be fired and TNP can apologize. I can't think of any region we have relations with where an ambassador would be in a place to take the delegacy by force, or anything like that, so as long as TNP cares about maintaining relations with other regions... I think we're okay.
I could possibly get behind legislation saying that ambassadors (and NPA members, and maybe other executive staff?) have to be citizens... but there's also a strong argument that the ability to participate in things right away without needing to wait up to two weeks is a huge factor in getting people involved and keeping them there, and that instituting a delay will reduce our ability to get new people to stick around.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I actually prefer the original system Hersfold proposed as the first law adopted by TNP a decade ago, which is that an oath of office should be taken by anyone holding an office or position in the government.
The hidden "backdoor" reduction of who must post an oath by limiting it to government officials, and then adopting a restricted definition of government officials was another poor decision that really needs to be revisited and reversed.
An oath of office, if nothing else, reinforces the obligations of the person entering service to obey and protect the region and its laws in fulfilling their duties.
I happen to favor an oath (the same oath, not a separate one) be taken by diplomats and NPA members. (This is true in real life btw, as for example, every person in the military, non-civil service, and diplomat takes the same oath as the Vice President, the members of the Cabinet and Congress, in the US.) I would favor Ministers and all of their deputies doing the same.
The bill needs to be simplified into just a single oath to be taken by all of those who should be posting it. The last thing we need are different oaths for different offices and positions in service to TNP.
Who's to say that those currently
The hidden "backdoor" reduction of who must post an oath by limiting it to government officials, and then adopting a restricted definition of government officials was another poor decision that really needs to be revisited and reversed.
An oath of office, if nothing else, reinforces the obligations of the person entering service to obey and protect the region and its laws in fulfilling their duties.
I happen to favor an oath (the same oath, not a separate one) be taken by diplomats and NPA members. (This is true in real life btw, as for example, every person in the military, non-civil service, and diplomat takes the same oath as the Vice President, the members of the Cabinet and Congress, in the US.) I would favor Ministers and all of their deputies doing the same.
The bill needs to be simplified into just a single oath to be taken by all of those who should be posting it. The last thing we need are different oaths for different offices and positions in service to TNP.
Who's to say that those currently
As do I. I don't see any reason why ambassadors should have to take any oath of office. They have no governmental authority. If they act improperly they can be dismissed by the Minister.mcmasterdonia:
Alta
TNPer
I'm sorry I wasn't able to take the time to write a proper response yesterday (hence the lack of any at all). What I'm hearing is that all the main grievances are about the necessity of ambassadors taking oaths. Would that be correct? I think I've been able to deal with the practicality issue, though if you're still not buying that, please do say so.
HuAt
TNPer
I have to agree with Gross. I think anyone holding a position in TNP should have to take an oath. Taking an oath does not mean that someone has a large amount of power it just certifies that the person in said position is loyal to the TNP and will represent us well or will at least try to, in whatever position they hold.
I also don't see the point in having different oaths for different positions. I think everyone should be held to th same standards of they hold a position.
I also don't see the point in having different oaths for different positions. I think everyone should be held to th same standards of they hold a position.
Yes. Bloat.
If the mofa wants an oath, let them do it. No legislation is needed in this area.
If the mofa wants an oath, let them do it. No legislation is needed in this area.
Gulliver
TNPer
I don't see a need to require an oath from ambassadors in line with the sentiments others have already expressed. And if we did decide we wanted them taking oaths, I think it would be preferable to broaden who has to take the already existing oath and for it to apply not just to ambassadors but similar positions as well.
Alta
TNPer
Due to some (relatively minor) real life events, and due to the fact that the general idea of this bill seems to be opposed by a majority of TNPers, and that any change in language or details will sway only (at most) one or two, I am officially withdrawing this bill. Thanks for the commentary, though; it was nearly all positive, and I thank everyone that did give feedback to me on my first attempt at writing a bill. Hopefully I'll be able to use this experience to write a bill that will pass next time.