Emergency Law

I think we can make this a bit more elegant by putting section 7.4 at the top. How's this:
Chapter 6, Section 6.8 of the Legal Code will be struck.

A new Chapter will be added to the Legal Code immediately following Chapter 6, reading:
Chapter 7: Emergency Situations

Section 7.1: Emergency Powers
1. The Regional Assembly may declare an actual emergency by majority vote. Votes on declaring emergencies must be expedited, and may last no longer than three days.
2. During the declaration of an emergency, or anytime afterward while the emergency is ongoing, the Regional Assembly may, by majority vote, make both binding and nonbinding recommendations to government officials regarding an appropriate course of action, enforcement of regional laws, or other matter related to the ongoing emergency.

Section 7.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
6. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
7. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
8. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

Section 7.3: Forum Access
9. The existence of widespread obstacles that impede access to the official forum of The North Pacific, including, but not limited to, Denial of Service attacks and prolonged server downtime, shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
10. The governmental authorities of the region must inform the public of any forum access emergency, and continue to provide updates to the extent that is practicable for the duration of the emergency.
11. During a forum access emergency, no resident may be penalized for failing to take actions for which access to the forum is required.
12. The governmental authorities of the region are authorized to take any reasonable actions which they deem appropriate and which are consistent with the spirit and intent of regional laws to preserve the continuity of both community and government for the duration of the emergency.

Section 7.4: WA Delegacy
13. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or acting Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
14. Delegacy emergencies that fall outside the scope of the above clause may be declared by the RA only with the recommendation of the Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council.
15. During a delegacy emergency, the legal or acting Delegate may authorize any individual in the Line of Succession to hold the delegacy and to take any actions related to that position, including, but not limited to, voting in the World Assembly, moderating the Regional Message Board, and ejecting and banning nations from the region.
16. The in-game Delegate must follow any instructions from the legal or acting Delegate as to the execution of their powers.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
There is still a need to describe who can act in the period of time before the R.A. can complete a vote, or at least, include a statement that the chapter cannot be construed to preclude any other actions deemed appropriate under Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights. I still think in order to avoid unintended consequences that this proposal needs to explicitly address both points, or this remains flawed legislation that will merely prove that Professor Murphy was right all along.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Should an emergency powers vote include some level of quorum? Just curious.
Click to expand...
As of the latest draft (COE's, that is, though I have some edits to it forthcoming), quorum would be the same as it is for all RA votes. I don't think there's a need to lessen that in this case, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

Grosse, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. In the absence of a declaration of an actual emergency, no one is authorized to take extralegal or unconstitutional actions. Only the RA, as representatives of the nations of the region, can make that call. And I think that's appropriate. If we allow any government official to act illegally without explicit approval of the RA, they could at any time take illegal actions simply by claiming that there was an unidentified, unapproved emergency. Why should we allow that?
 
I disagree with your theory that only the R.A. can act in any emergency and no one else. If the way the government is structured under the Constitution and Legal Code permits others than just the R.A. to act, then that makes those other bodies "representatives" of the Nations of the Region. That was the intent with that language in Clause 11 to begin with, and nothing has changed to justify a unnecessarily more narrow reading.

Second, someone has to be able to act in response to an emergency before the R.A. completes a vote, no matter how expedited it is, without making a too short a voting period a potential threat in and of itself. And the need for a rapid short term response was one of the rationale for the way Clause 11 was worded in the first place.

And Professor Murphy (who was still living the last time I checked,at that time he was still a professor at a school of business in Pennsylvania) is right; what can go wrong will sooner or later will go wrong, and at the least useful time. This is why properly written legislation needs to address the two points I raised before; otherwise, it is an exercise in futility.
 
I have to agree with Grosse on this one. Someone, or a committee of a few elected officials, should have powers to act in response to an emergency before a vote, but they should have some set limits so we're not having a debate over executive authority when the time comes.

EDIT: The committee of elected officials being already constitutionally-mandated positions; not new positions. Or, maybe a few specially selected security councillors?
 
RPI:
I have to agree with Grosse on this one. Someone, or a committee of a few elected officials, should have powers to act in response to an emergency before a vote, but they should have some set limits so we're not having a debate over executive authority when the time comes.

EDIT: The committee of elected officials being already constitutionally-mandated positions; not new positions. Or, maybe a few specially selected security councillors?
Click to expand...
I simply can't support giving government officials carte blanche power to violate the constitution, bill of rights, and legal code, without any kind of legislative oversight or judicial recourse.

We have survived for nearly three years under the current constitution, and not once have we needed a government official to act in an emergency capacity before an RA referendum on the matter could be conducted. And under current law, doing so is not legal. I don't see any compelling reason to change that, and I see at least one very compelling reason not to.

I generally trust our elected officials to conduct themselves well, but that's no reason to build glaring loopholes for abuse into our laws.
 
SillyString:
RPI:
I have to agree with Grosse on this one. Someone, or a committee of a few elected officials, should have powers to act in response to an emergency before a vote, but they should have some set limits so we're not having a debate over executive authority when the time comes.

EDIT: The committee of elected officials being already constitutionally-mandated positions; not new positions. Or, maybe a few specially selected security councillors?
Click to expand...
I simply can't support giving government officials carte blanche power to violate the constitution, bill of rights, and legal code, without any kind of legislative oversight or judicial recourse.

We have survived for nearly three years under the current constitution, and not once have we needed a government official to act in an emergency capacity before an RA referendum on the matter could be conducted. And under current law, doing so is not legal. I don't see any compelling reason to change that, and I see at least one very compelling reason not to.

I generally trust our elected officials to conduct themselves well, but that's no reason to build glaring loopholes for abuse into our laws.
Click to expand...
Yep
 
flemingovia:
SillyString:
RPI:
I have to agree with Grosse on this one. Someone, or a committee of a few elected officials, should have powers to act in response to an emergency before a vote, but they should have some set limits so we're not having a debate over executive authority when the time comes.

EDIT: The committee of elected officials being already constitutionally-mandated positions; not new positions. Or, maybe a few specially selected security councillors?
Click to expand...
I simply can't support giving government officials carte blanche power to violate the constitution, bill of rights, and legal code, without any kind of legislative oversight or judicial recourse.

We have survived for nearly three years under the current constitution, and not once have we needed a government official to act in an emergency capacity before an RA referendum on the matter could be conducted. And under current law, doing so is not legal. I don't see any compelling reason to change that, and I see at least one very compelling reason not to.

I generally trust our elected officials to conduct themselves well, but that's no reason to build glaring loopholes for abuse into our laws.
Click to expand...
Yep
Click to expand...
I agree. A previous version of our Constitution allowed this sort of individual action and the then Minister of Defense was able to manipulate the Cabinet into a legal dissolution of the government.

I can not honestly think of an 'emergency' situation in which the structure of the Security Council wouldn't be sufficient. Or am I missing something?
 
Gracius Maximus:
flemingovia:
SillyString:
RPI:
I have to agree with Grosse on this one. Someone, or a committee of a few elected officials, should have powers to act in response to an emergency before a vote, but they should have some set limits so we're not having a debate over executive authority when the time comes.

EDIT: The committee of elected officials being already constitutionally-mandated positions; not new positions. Or, maybe a few specially selected security councillors?
Click to expand...
I simply can't support giving government officials carte blanche power to violate the constitution, bill of rights, and legal code, without any kind of legislative oversight or judicial recourse.

We have survived for nearly three years under the current constitution, and not once have we needed a government official to act in an emergency capacity before an RA referendum on the matter could be conducted. And under current law, doing so is not legal. I don't see any compelling reason to change that, and I see at least one very compelling reason not to.

I generally trust our elected officials to conduct themselves well, but that's no reason to build glaring loopholes for abuse into our laws.
Click to expand...
Yep
Click to expand...
I agree. A previous version of our Constitution allowed this sort of individual action and the then Minister of Defense was able to manipulate the Cabinet into a legal dissolution of the government.

I can not honestly think of an 'emergency' situation in which the structure of the Security Council wouldn't be sufficient. Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
If this has been done before and it did not work, by all means I'm against it.
 
i can think of a small number of scenarios where the SC might need to move uber-fast. But in the past TNP has always proved itself to be pragmatic and forgiving when officials have had to move fast (I am going back quite a way). So I am not sure we need to legislate - just have some common sense.
 
All right, so here's the current draft. I tweaked some of COE's language a bit (mostly in clause 2, but also added "legal or acting" to clause 14), but I like the reordered structure.

Chapter 6, Section 6.8 of the Legal Code will be struck.

A new Chapter will be added to the Legal Code immediately following Chapter 6, reading:
Chapter 7: Emergency Situations

Section 7.1: Emergency Powers
1. The Regional Assembly may declare an actual emergency by majority vote. Votes on declaring emergencies must be expedited, and may last no longer than three days.
2. Concurrent with the declaration of an emergency, or anytime afterward while the emergency is ongoing, the Regional Assembly may, by majority vote, make both binding and nonbinding recommendations related to the ongoing emergency to government officials regarding an appropriate course of action, enforcement of regional laws, or other similar matter.

Section 7.2: Disease Control
3. A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
4. In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government must present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
5. During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
6. Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
7. During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a resident or citizen removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
8. Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any resident or citizen who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.

Section 7.3: Forum Access
9. The existence of widespread obstacles that impede access to the official forum of The North Pacific, including, but not limited to, Denial of Service attacks and prolonged server downtime, shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
10. The governmental authorities of the region must inform the public of any forum access emergency, and continue to provide updates to the extent that is practicable for the duration of the emergency.
11. During a forum access emergency, no resident may be penalized for failing to take actions for which access to the forum is required.
12. The governmental authorities of the region are authorized to take any reasonable actions which they deem appropriate and which are consistent with the spirit and intent of regional laws to preserve the continuity of both community and government for the duration of the emergency.

Section 7.4: WA Delegacy
13. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or acting Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
14. Delegacy emergencies that fall outside the scope of the above clause may be declared by majority vote of the RA only with the recommendation of the legal or acting Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council.
15. During a delegacy emergency, the legal or acting Delegate may authorize any individual in the Line of Succession to hold the delegacy and to take any actions related to that position, including, but not limited to, voting in the World Assembly, moderating the Regional Message Board, and ejecting and banning nations from the region.
16. The in-game Delegate must follow any instructions from the legal or acting Delegate as to the execution of their powers.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I would like to move this draft to formal debate. :)
 
I still then we need to acknowledge that government authorities have the power to act while waiting for the R.A. to vote. Otherwise this language could easily be construed to prohibit any action of any kind when an emergency first arises, and that construction goes again the clear meaning of Clause 11, and I still hold that this bill needs to address that period of time since it is foolhardy to force everyone to sit on their hands in the meantime, waiting for an agreed upon motion and a vote.

I am against this bill moving to format debate until these concerns are address in the bill head-on, and not ignored.
 
SillyString:
Section 7.4: WA Delegacy
13. The resignation, recall, or loss of World Assembly membership of the legal or acting Delegate, or any capture of the delegacy of The North Pacific by any nation not the legal or acting Delegate, shall be considered an actual emergency, and does not require a declaration by the RA.
14. Delegacy emergencies that fall outside the scope of the above clause may be declared by majority vote of the RA only with the recommendation of the legal or acting Vice Delegate, in consultation with the Security Council.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't the RA be able to vote on "other" delegacy emergencies out of its own accord?

Also, is the Disease Control section really necessary? If I recall correctly, the zombie outbreak is 2 or 3 days of harmless fun and afterwards everything returns back to normal, as if nothing happened. Can you call that an emergency?
 
This bill is now in formal debate, which will last for five days. Then, after that, it shall be scheduled for a vote.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I still then we need to acknowledge that government authorities have the power to act while waiting for the R.A. to vote.
Click to expand...

I have already answered this. I will not support language that gives government officials carte blanche to ignore the constitution, bill of rights, and legal code, without explicit RA approval of their actions.

karrak:
Why wouldn't the RA be able to vote on "other" delegacy emergencies out of its own accord?
Click to expand...
I do not think it is a good idea for the RA to have the power to decide, on its own and without any input from anyone on the security council, that the delegacy needs to be handed to someone other than the legal or acting delegate. Even in the event of an existing threat, doing so could jeapordize ongoing SC plans and coordination to address the threat.

Also, is the Disease Control section really necessary? If I recall correctly, the zombie outbreak is 2 or 3 days of harmless fun and afterwards everything returns back to normal, as if nothing happened. Can you call that an emergency?
Click to expand...
If you check the very first section of this bill (the removal), the language in that clause is already in the legal code. This bill simply moves it to be located with other invocations of the emergency clause.
 
SillyString:
I do not think it is a good idea for the RA to have the power to decide, on its own and without any input from anyone on the security council, that the delegacy needs to be handed to someone other than the legal or acting delegate.
Click to expand...
I probably didn't express myself correctly. (Also, I may misassume that the VD can only give a recommandation to declare an emergency, not to not to declare an emergency or to temporarily refrain from voting awaiting SC actions.)

My concern is that the RA should have the final say in the matter, and that the VD could block this by withholding its recommandation. Or could the RA override the recommandation of the VD?

Same question for the decision making process inside the SC. Say the majority in the SC is against declaring a delegacy emergency. Could the VD give a recommandation none the less?

Even in the event of an existing threat, doing so could jeapordize ongoing SC plans and coordination to address the threat.
Click to expand...
While I have some problems with placing blind trust in the SC, I can see that the SC needs to escape immediate democratic control by the RA for it to be able to function, and that it is the best body to deal with emergencies immediately. But in case the RA and the SC keep holding opposing views on whether a situation is a delegacy emergency and on how to proceed, I would like the ultimate decision to be with the RA.


The disease control sections seems a non-issue to me, so no further remarks on that.
 
SillyString:
Grosseschnauzer:
I still then we need to acknowledge that government authorities have the power to act while waiting for the R.A. to vote.
Click to expand...

I have already answered this. I will not support language that gives government officials carte blanche to ignore the constitution, bill of rights, and legal code, without explicit RA approval of their actions.
Click to expand...
Bill of Rights:
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights provides the limitation on emergency power being exercised by anyone or any body within the government. Do the position you take is a straw man, for a situation that cannot arise, so long as the bill is properly drafted so as to not be construe to preclude any emergency situation other than the one you propose to enumerate, and the paralysis for the first number of days waiting for an R.A> vote. It's a absolutely hare-brained scheme you are advocating, and unless it is addressed, this is a bad bill and we'd be better off adopting nothing than adopting this incomplete problematic bill.

So I think you really need to come up with something that addresses how an emergency can be responded to while waiting for the R.A. to complete a vote. Unless it is addressed, you are creating a hole the size of a mack truck for adveraries to exploit because we would have to wait for days or longer for an R.A. vote to be started, debated, and completed, and not counting the time needed for a proposal from an unspecified source to be presented to the R.A. for a vote to begin with.

Because of this series flaw, I stand by my objection to this bill being in formal debate, and to there being a vote until this is addressed.
 
Grosse, you bolded an irrelevant portion of that clause. The relevant portion here is bolded below:
11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights does *not* give every government authority the ability to exercise emergency powers unilaterally. It *requires* that these powers be delegated by the nations or their representatives.
 
And I think you are plainly, simply and clearly misreading Clause 11. Any mechanism in the Constitution becomes the requisite express consent as the nations of the region and their representatives adopted the Constitution and Legal Code, and defined the norms; the closing clause then qualifies the extent to which the authority to act in an emergency may reasonably vary from the provisions of the Constitution and the Legal Code in response to the actual emergency.
 
Acting within the boundaries of the constition and legal code is *always* fine, whether there's an emergency or not. It is those reasonable variations that require the express consent of the nations or their representatives. Those specific variations must be specified and authorized by the RA.
 
And again, the problem comes about how to handle the need to act prior to the completion of an R.A. vote.

The Bill of Rights was originally composed in an environment where the structure of government was unknown and had to state broad principles and thus be given broad meanings. It has function under four different constitutional structures since its origination.

The problem here is that certain parties insist on a narrow construction of a document that was never intended to be narrowly construed. The R.A. is not mind you, a representative body. Nor is it composed of all of the nations of the region. So one could just as easily argue that the R.A. can no more authorize any reasonable variation under Clause 11 since it is not composed of representatives of the region, nor is it composed of all of the nations of the region, just those who choose to join it and who are accepted.
So if we are to follow the narrow construction, COE, that you are arguing, even the R.A. is not qualified under Clause 11 to approve such.That is the fallacy of your argument. My understanding of the Clause permits the R.A., the S.C., the Cabinet (if circumstances were such), etc., or whoever can act, to act as reasonably consistent with the Governing Documents as the emergency would allow under whatever the circumstances are.
That is why this bill in its current form is flawed. It assume that no one can act or should act, or could act until the R.A. completes a vote on something or other (and it is unclear who could or would have to present the motion). And such an approach would preclude any reasonable action during the time prior to the completion of a vote, which is utterly ridiculous. That in and of itself would neuter Clause 11 just when it would likely be needed most.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
So I think you really need to come up with something that addresses how an emergency can be responded to while waiting for the R.A. to complete a vote.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say this.

No.
 
A volunteer assembly composed of all nations who show up and meet minimal joining requirements is a representative body. I'm not sure how you could come up with anything more representative, short of a region-wide referendum.

EDIT: And since the BOR specifies "or their representatives" it is clear that a region-wide referendum is unnecessary. The only requirement is that the decision-making power resides in a representative body.

EDIT 2: That concept is sometimes known as democracy.
 
SillyString:
Grosseschnauzer:
So I think you really need to come up with something that addresses how an emergency can be responded to while waiting for the R.A. to complete a vote.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say this.

No.
Click to expand...
Anjd I don't know how to make it anyh more clear that not addressing this flaw in the proposal as you have it, is leav ing the door wide open to paralysis and failure at the very point in time the need to act in response to the emergency would be greatest.

YES.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
A volunteer assembly composed of all nations who show up and meet minimal joining requirements is a representative body. I'm not sure how you could come up with anything more representative, short of a region-wide referendum.

EDIT: And since the BOR specifies "or their representatives" it is clear that a region-wide referendum is unnecessary. The only requirement is that the decision-making power resides in a representative body.

EDIT 2: That concept is sometimes known as democracy.
Click to expand...
You argument would apply just as well to the Security Council as it does to the R.A. The S.C> is a body created under the democratic process to act to defend the democratic process.

Which is part of the problem you continue to fail to recognize or acknowledge.

Which is why the failure to address the exercise of authority to act and respond immediately to an emergency situation makes this whole proposal deeply flawed and useless.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
You argument would apply just as well to the Security Council as it does to the R.A. The S.C> is a body created under the democratic process to act to defend the democratic process.

Which is part of the problem you continue to fail to recognize or acknowledge.
Click to expand...
You must have missed my recognition and acknowledgement of that point. Don't mistake my failure to agree with you for not reading your points. For your benefit, here were my comments on that subject:
Crushing Our Enemies:
There is no reasonable reading of our laws that could identify SC members as the representatives of the nations of the region.
Click to expand...

Crushing Our Enemies:
But the SC does not directly *represent* the nations of the region. We have lifetime terms. You were made an SC member in 2011, and there are only a handful of citizens who were RA members in that time. In a few years, the same will be true of me. At the moment that an SC member is appointed, you could argue that they are representative of the nations. But the longer they retain their position, and the more the RA changes, the less representative they become. The only accountability measure in place for members of the SC is recall, which requires a two thirds vote.

The SC is in place to monitor regional security, make recommendations when appropriate, and take action when absolutely necessary. I think it's inappropriate to vest important decision-making power in an un-elected body, and in this case, the Bill of Rights prevents it by requiring these decisions to be made by representatives of the nations.
Click to expand...
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Anjd I don't know how to make it anyh more clear that not addressing this flaw in the proposal as you have it, is leav ing the door wide open to paralysis and failure at the very point in time the need to act in response to the emergency would be greatest.
Click to expand...
It is not going to happen.

I will not give any government official the independent power to ignore the documents of the region for any reason. It will not be going in this bill. Period. End of story. Additionally, I will not vote for any bill which gives any government official that power.

I would much rather, by about ten thousand times, we be forced to scramble around for a day or two in the event of an unexpected emergency situation that we haven't accounted for, than that we ever, under any circumstances, grant to any government official of the region (let alone to all of them!) the unlimited, unrestricted power to violate any and all of our governing documents simply by vaguely handwaving in the direction of an Emergency Exit sign.

I invite and encourage you to vote against my bill if it is not up to your standards in loopholes that are wide open for abuse, and I additionally invite and encourage you to propose your own bill that does what you want. But it is not going into mine.
 
SillyString:
Grosseschnauzer:
Anjd I don't know how to make it anyh more clear that not addressing this flaw in the proposal as you have it, is leav ing the door wide open to paralysis and failure at the very point in time the need to act in response to the emergency would be greatest.
Click to expand...
It is not going to happen.

I will not give any government official the independent power to ignore the documents of the region for any reason. It will not be going in this bill. Period. End of story. Additionally, I will not vote for any bill which gives any government official that power.

I would much rather, by about ten thousand times, we be forced to scramble around for a day or two in the event of an unexpected emergency situation that we haven't accounted for, than that we ever, under any circumstances, grant to any government official of the region (let alone to all of them!) the unlimited, unrestricted power to violate any and all of our governing documents simply by vaguely handwaving in the direction of an Emergency Exit sign.

I invite and encourage you to vote against my bill if it is not up to your standards in loopholes that are wide open for abuse, and I additionally invite and encourage you to propose your own bill that does what you want. But it is not going into mine.
Click to expand...
This ^

Completely and utterly agreed.
 
SillyString:
Grosseschnauzer:
Anjd I don't know how to make it anyh more clear that not addressing this flaw in the proposal as you have it, is leav ing the door wide open to paralysis and failure at the very point in time the need to act in response to the emergency would be greatest.
Click to expand...
It is not going to happen.

I will not give any government official the independent power to ignore the documents of the region for any reason. It will not be going in this bill. Period. End of story. Additionally, I will not vote for any bill which gives any government official that power.

I would much rather, by about ten thousand times, we be forced to scramble around for a day or two in the event of an unexpected emergency situation that we haven't accounted for, than that we ever, under any circumstances, grant to any government official of the region (let alone to all of them!) the unlimited, unrestricted power to violate any and all of our governing documents simply by vaguely handwaving in the direction of an Emergency Exit sign.

I invite and encourage you to vote against my bill if it is not up to your standards in loopholes that are wide open for abuse, and I additionally invite and encourage you to propose your own bill that does what you want. But it is not going into mine.
Click to expand...
What I am suggesting does not violate or contradict Clause 11 in any way. And to unlimited authority, not every Clause 11 grants that to anyone, and what I suggest is still limited by these clauses (bolded for your convenience.

11. No governmental authority of the region has the power to suspend or disregard the Constitution or the Legal Code. In the event of an actual emergency, the governmental authorities of the region, with the express consent of the Nations of the region or their representatives, is authorized to act in any reasonable manner that is consistent as practicable with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So allowing the S.C. or any other government official to act in an actual emergency while we wait for days for the R.A. to vote, no matter how expeditiously so as to be practicable and allow for meaningful participation in the vote, does not remove the limitations I've bolded in the quote of Clause 11.

Your bill has a giant loophole in its current form, and your inability and unwillingness to fix that serious and flawed loophole you would create by this bill, will sooner or later come back to haunt this region in its collective posterior. You seem totally incapable of understanding that fact, and that is the problem at the moment.

As wrttien, this is a bad and dangerous bill that should not be adopted in this form. Ever.
 
You know, you might find a more receptive audience for your complaints if you were able to present them without accompanying personal attacks.

But so long as you insist on calling me an idiot in every other post, I kindly invite the Right Honorable Grosseschnauzer Esquire to

[flash]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pRnQYS0S5c[/flash]
 
I'm sorry -- I criticize with emphasis a badly written flawed proposal that poses serious risks, and you consider that a personal attack.

The problem here is a that you refuse to accept criticism of your flawed legislative proposals, such as this one, and this time, it poses a serious danger if left as it is.

Your inability to comprehend that risk is at least part of the problem, as you refuse to see the danger it is creating and you refuse to address it. When it happens, and as Murphy's Law suggests that it will, sooner or later, you will be the one to totally blame for the fiasco. If you want to consider it a personal attack, it isn't it is a criticism of the exceeding poor drafting of this proposal, and the risk you are creating in not addressing the obvious and apparent flaw that it presents.

As to your video, how immature you are being' I would suggest you get rid of it.
 
Maybe the Administrator would like to act their age and cease acting their shoesize? I am getting tired of seeing personal attack after personal attack from you.
 
[bgcolor=darkblue]-- Mod Note: Let's please refrain from casting aspersions on one another's character or intelligence, and observe decorum. --[/bgcolor]
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
Maybe the Administrator would like to act their age and cease acting their shoesize? I am getting tired of seeing personal attack after personal attack from you.
Click to expand...
It was not a personal attack, but a response to one. I really these people may be your political allies or something, but I cannot be responsible for the personal attack leveled against me by SS. And if you read read this thread, I did not start any personal attacks, and I have tried to keep what I said in context to the proposal and the dangers it presents in its current form.
 
Formal debate has ended on this bill, and this will go to vote in about two days. The bill may not be edited further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top