Request for Review: Delegate and Vice Delegate Endorsement Counts[note]I am absolutely open to renaming this R4R should a better title present itself. It is somewhat of a broad question and I did not wish to compete for Longest R4R Title In TNP History this year, viz., Delegate and Vice Delegate Endorsement Counts, and Those of the Security Council, and Proper Exercise of Banjections for Reckless Endorsement Gathering and the Discretion Thereof.[/note]
I hereby request that the Court review the following actions by government officials:
By the Vice Delegate, Guslantis, insufficient endotarting to maintain a second-place endorsement count. Guslantis did hold second-place during much of August, from 8/11 through 8/31. However, prior to 8/11, Guslantis had not been recorded as holding the second most endorsements at all since June 20th, and then only on that date. Before that date and until the 11th, Guslantis was consistently either third or fourth in overall endorsements, with nations Plembobria and Cheongji generally taking the other two spots. As of now, 9/1, Plembobria has again risen to second place, with Guslantis in third. Additionally, during the examined time period, Guslantis has varied between roughly 20th and 35th place when it comes to most endorsements given out, exceeded by both Plembobria and Cheongji on each day.
By a member of the Security Council, Plembobria, excessive endotarting during the same time period, resulting in an endorsement count consistently exceeding that of the Vice Delegate. Plembobria's early swapping may be mitigated by the fact that a non-SC nation had also risen above the Vice Delegate's endorsement count, but their own endorsement level goes back significantly beyond when Cheongji had risen anywhere near as high, and continues to this date.
By the Delegate, Lord Ravenclaw, in choosing not to ban Plembobria or Cheongji during the period of time that those nations held an endorsement count above that of the Vice Delegate.
The evidence for points 1 and 2 can be found in graphical form on the SC Logs page, or in text form on r3n's server, and is current as of today (2016-09-01). I do not think that the scripting of this data poses a conflict of interest for the Chief Justice. Note that the data on 2016-08-12 and 2016-08-25 appears to be corrupted and has been discounted.
I believe that the first action above may have violated the following portion of the Constitution:
Article 3:
10. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
I believe that it may have violated the Constitution in the following way: The Vice Delegate does not hold the second most endorsements in the region, and has not done so for some time. Unfortunately, this section of the Constitution does not appear to grant any leeway to the Vice Delegate on how long they may take to attain that rank, and as a result a Vice Delegate may find themselves undergoing to prosecution should anybody decide that falling below 2nd place is or should be considered a crime. Alternatively, it may give rise to the interpretation that anybody who rises above the Vice Delegate is themselves committing a crime.
I do not advance either of these arguments myself - I think that they would be dangerous oversimplifications of a complex issue - and I would like to hear the Court weigh in on proper interpretation and application of this section of the Constitution. Of particular interest beyond the current state of affairs is that immediately following an election, either General or Special, wherein an incoming Delegate or Vice Delegate may take some time (hours, at minimum, but more likely to be days) to attain their proper positioning, and will not meet their constitutional endorsement requirements in the meantime. This question is especially relevant due to TNP's increasingly large WA population, whose size poses a barrier to anybody seeking to attain a high number of endorsements (let alone first or second place).
Additionally, I believe that the first and second actions above may have violated the following portion of the Legal Code:
Chapter 1:
22. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
I believe that they may have violated the Legal Code in the following way: If one interprets the requirement that the Vice Delegate maintain a 2nd place endorsement count as one of the duties of their job, and also adopts the interpretation that failing to hold that position is an example of nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance, then a charge of Gross Misconduct could be brought against the Vice Delegate for not having that count. Similarly, one could plausibly conclude that any person who takes action to cause a nation which is not the Vice Delegate to rise above the Vice Delegate's nation might be guilty of a crime themselves, even if that person poses no plausible threat to the region.
Again, this is not an interpretation I endorse, but it is one that could be supported by the text of the law itself. If that interpretation is the correct one in the eyes of the Court, the law itself may be invalid due to the following clause of the Bill of Rights:
Bill of Rights:
4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member.
As the question of prosecution is extremely relevant to the Attorney General's office, I ask the Court to weigh in on this issue.
Furthermore, I hereby request that the Court review the following law:
Chapter 5:
21. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.
I believe that the above law - and Raven's use or non-use of it - has the potential to violate the following portion of the Bill of Rights:
Bill of Rights:
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.
I believe that it may have violated the Bill of Rights in the following way: The operative word in this section of the law is "may", and it is a critical one - the Delegate is granted discretion to determine which nations, if any, should be banned for exceeding the Vice Delegate's endorsement count. They may choose to ban any nation which does so, or they may choose to ban none of them, or they may choose to ban some and not others. The latter case is most likely (and, indeed, has always been true), and it is that case which presents a possible Bill of Rights violation. The BoR grants every nation fair and equal treatment under the law, without bias or discrimination. However, the discretion when it comes to who should be banned introduces exactly that possibility for inequality.
It may be a reasonable distinction to decline to ban a Security Council member who exceeds the Vice Delegate, while choosing to ban a non-SC-member who does the same thing - there is a good case to be made for the merit of this position, given that the SC is explicitly tasked and trusted with regional security. But when it comes to judging whether to ignore, eject, or ban a non-SC member, much of what must factor into any decision is going to be judged on personal familiarity, someone's service record within the region, and, potentially, favoritism. In these, it is very hard to ensure that all nations are afforded the proper protections of the law.
A degree of discretion is critical in restraining the excesses of power, and I do not dislike this specific section of the law - it is well-written, well-designed, and overall suits our needs. I do not ask the Court to strike it down or render it toothless. Rather, I ask the Court for its guidance on how the concepts of due process and fair and equal treatment apply to laws which must needs be left subjective.
If the Court would permit it, I would like to give a brief statement in relation to point 3:
As Delegate, I chose to consult with the Security Council regarding the nation known as Cheongji's (aka Gim) endotarting and to assist with their efforts to reduce his count via telegram and any other methods that they felt were reasonable. I was reluctant to ban or eject the nation as I did not feel, nor did the Security Council, that he was a threat to the Delegacy or the security of The North Pacific at any time.
I also, do not feel that it is the Delegate's job to forcibly ensure the Vice Delegate is number 2 in the region for endorsements via banjection and ejection. Rather, I feel it is the job and duty of the Vice-Delegate to ensure that they are number 2 by way of endotarting, telegramming and maintaining the mandated duties of the office. I would consider any argument that I should act to assist that endeavour as both reckless and dangerous when it comes to our security - needlessly expending influence on non-essential matters would be detrimental to The North Pacific's security.
I have chosen to ban no nations for what is termed in this request as "reckless endorsement gathering", due to Section 5.5 (Sanity) of the Legal Code which states that "The Security Council Law is to be applied in a reasonable manner".
While I do not feel the constant back and forth between Gustlantis and Plembobria was detrimental or dangerous to our security, I was perturbed by the concern that a Security Councillor was consistently pushing the Vice Delegate into number 3 of the endorsement lists as much as I was concerned by the Vice Delegate's inability to hold the spot consistently. One could argue that it was with a spirit of competition and another argument could be that the Security Councillor was pushing the Vice Delegate to improve their own activity and thus improve our regional security.
I accept this request for review for consideration.
Unless I am given notice of intent to submit information and inability to do so within this time frame, I will expect any submissions to come within the next 4 days (prior to (time=1473253200) by your forum time). (Such notice should be posted here within the same time frame).
I have referenced in my submission certain logs which are held on an off-forum server. Would the Chief Justice like me to collect the relevant data from those logs and submit them formally, or is the reference and a link sufficient?
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by SillyString as Attorney General on Delegate and Vice Delegate Endorsement Counts
Opinion drafted by Eluvatar, joined by Gracius Maximus and Kialga
The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by SillyString.
The Court took into consideration the brief filed here by Lord Ravenclaw.
The Court took into consideration the relevant parts of The North Pacific Bill of Rights:
The Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific
1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection and WA membership.
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
3. Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the World Assembly shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.
4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member.
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.
6. No Nation shall be held to answer for a crime in a manner not prescribed by the Constitution or the Legal Code. No Nation shall be subjected to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. No Nation shall ever be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against itself.
7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.
8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.
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.
The Court took into specific consideration the relevant underlined third and final sentence of clause 2 and clauses 4, 8 and 9 of The North Pacific Bill of Rights.
The Court took into consideration the relevant Article 3 of the Constitution of The North Pacific:
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate
1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
5. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
6. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
7. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
8. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
9. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law. 10. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
11. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position. If a member of the line of succession assumes the duties of either position while serving in, or having assumed the duties of, any other constitutionally-mandated elected office, they will be considered absent from that office.
12. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
The Court took into specific consideration the relevant underlined clauses 1 and 10 of Article 3 of the Constitution of The North Pacific.
The Court took into consideration the relevant Chapter 5 of The North Pacific Legal Code:
Chapter 5: Regional Security Law
1. Any laws regulating the activities of the Security Council must be listed in this chapter.
2. In this chapter, "Council" means the Security Council.
3. In this Chapter, the serving Delegate means the person holding the constitutionally-mandated elected office of the Delegate or, in the case of a vacancy in that office, the person that has assumed the duties of that office.
Section 5.1: Council Requirements
4. The influence requirement for members of the Council consists of an influence score (Soft Power Disbursement Rating) within The North Pacific greater than or equal to 109,500, or an influence rank within The North Pacific greater than or equal to Apprentice, whichever is lower. 5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 300 endorsements, or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
6. The Vice Delegate must maintain an endorsement level of at least 75 per cent of the Delegates endorsement count.
7. Where the computation results in fractions, the count shall be rounded down.
8. The serving Delegate is exempt from endorsement requirements.
Section 5.2: Admission
9. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific satisfying the influence requirement and endorsement count requirement may apply to join the Security Council.
10. An application which does not meet the appropriate requirements or ceases to meet them must be rejected.
Section 5.3: Enforcement
11. Whenever any Council member fails to meet any requirements to maintain their position, the Vice Delegate must warn them, and if the Council member does not come into compliance within eight days of the warning, the Vice Delegate must suspend them.
12. The Vice Delegate must remove members of the Council whose member nation no longer exists, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, or resigns from the World Assembly outside the needs of a NPA sanctioned mission.
13. The Vice Delegate must report any suspension or removal of a member of the Council to the Regional Assembly.
14. If a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence requirements, the Vice Delegate will reinstate them.
15. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a member poses a security risk to The North Pacific and request approval from the Regional Assembly to remove the member from the Council.
16. The Speaker of the Regional Assembly will submit the request to an immediate vote of the Regional Assembly; approval will require a two-thirds majority.
17. The Council may task a member with taking actions required under this chapter when the Vice Delegate is not available.
18. During any period when serving as acting Delegate, the Vice Delegate will be considered absent from the office of Vice Delegate. 19. If the Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, resigns from the World Assembly, or fails to maintain an endorsement level within the range required of Council members for more than eight days, the Vice Delegate will be removed from office.
Section 5.4: Endorsement Gathering
20. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which meets all of the following criteria:
It is not in the Council or holding the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate.
It has been reported to the Delegate as a possible threat to regional security by the Council.
It has continued actively gathering endorsements after two warnings against gathering endorsements sent at least two days apart from each other.
It has more endorsements than 50 fewer than the Vice Delegate or 75 per cent of the Delegate's endorsement level, whichever is least.
21. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.
22. Nations banned for reckless endorsement gathering must remain banned at least until they update outside The North Pacific.
23. Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate or Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council under this chapter.
Section 5.5: Sanity 24. The Security Council Law is to be applied in a reasonable manner.
The Court took into specific consideration the relevant underlined clauses 5, 6, 19, 21, and 24 of Chapter 5 of The North Pacific Legal Code.
The Court took into consideration the relevant Sections 7 and 8 of Chapter 1 of The North Pacific Legal Code:
Chapter 1: Criminal Code
1. 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.
Section 1.1: Treason
2. "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.
3. Specifically, no player maintaining a nation in a region or organization at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.
4. At this time, there are no regions or organizations at war with TNP. At this time TNP is allied with Stargate, the South Pacific, Taijitu, International Democratic Union, Equilism, Europeia, Albion and The East Pacific.
5. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
Section 1.2: Espionage
6. "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.
7. The information shared must not be accessible to a person who is not a member of the region or group it is gathered from except by cracking technical security measures.
8. The information must be gathered from The North Pacific or a foreign power the Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against.
9. The Regional Assembly has agreed to prohibit espionage against Europeia and Albion.
10. The Speaker will update the preceding clause as appropriate.
Section 1.3: Fraud
11. "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.
12. "Fraud" is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Section 1.4. Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming
13. "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.
14. "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.
15. Phishing also includes the collection of personal information kept at the Forum.
16. "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.
17. Spamming includes any attempts to force a DOS error on forums and any attempts to flood the RMB of a region which is not that nation's normal abode.
18. No Nation of The North Pacific may perform, order, condone, or accept as legal, Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming.
Section 1.5: Proxying
19. "Proxying" is defined as use of a proxy server to render a forum user anonymous or any practice which allows a member multiple accounts.
20. Forum administrators will inform the Government and Court of Proxying they observe.
Section 1.6. Adspam
21. Recruitment for other regions on the Regional Message board may be regulated or prohibited by Delegate Decree.
Section 1.7. Conspiracy 22. "Conspiracy" is defined as planning, attempting, or helping to commit any crime under this criminal code.
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 Court took into specific consideration the relevant underlined clauses 1, 22, and 23 of Chapter 1 of The North Pacific Legal Code.
The Court took into consideration the clauses 7 and 8 of Chapter 2 of The North Pacific Legal Code:
7. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime.
8. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit.
The Court took into consideration the relevant Section 1 of Chapter 4 of The North Pacific Legal Code:
Section 4.1: Oath of Office
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.
2. All government officials will be required to take the Oath of Office within one week of their election, as certified by the Election Commissioner; appointment, as publicly announced; or confirmation, as verified by a member of the Speaker's Office. The taking of the Oath constitutes assumption of the office. Failure to post the oath within the allotted time will result in the office being considered vacant, to be filled in accordance with all laws governing elections, appointments, or confirmations, as is appropriate for the office in question.
The Court took into consideration the relevant clause 2 of Chapter 6 of The North Pacific Legal Code:
2. Any resident may apply for citizenship 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. 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 citizenship in The North Pacific.
The Court understood the request for review to request answers to the following questions:
Question One - Did Vice Delegate Bootsie, Security Counselor Plembobria, or Delegate Lord Ravenclaw break the law when the nation of Plembobria passed Bootsie's nation of Guslantis' endorsement count, or when Cheongji passed Guslantis' endorsement count?
Question Two - When would a Vice Delegate with fewer than the second most endorsements be committing Gross Misconduct?
Question Three - Is it a crime for a nation that is not the Vice Delegate to have the second most endorsements in the region?
Question Four - Is it a crime for a person to do any thing which would cause the Vice Delegate to not have the second most endorsements in the region?
Question Five - Is Clause 21 of Chapter 5 of The North Pacific Legal Code, permitting but not requiring the Delegate to eject or ban nations with more endorsements than the Vice Delegate invalid because it violates the Bill of Rights' guarantee of equal protection?
As an answer to question one is best informed by the answers to questions two, three, and five, it will be addressed last.
Question Two - When does a Vice Delegate not possessing the second most endorsements in the region commit Gross Misconduct?
The constitution states that the Vice Delegate will have the second most endorsements, but the details of how that is to be enforced is left to the legal code. Of specific note are the definition of Gross Misconduct and clauses 5, 6, 19, and 24 of Chapter 5 of the legal code.
23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
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.
5. The minimum endorsement count for members of the Council is defined as 300 endorsements, or 50 per cent of the serving Delegate's endorsement count, whichever is lower.
6. The Vice Delegate must maintain an endorsement level of at least 75 per cent of the Delegates endorsement count.
...
19. If the Vice Delegate nation ceases to exist, voluntarily departs The North Pacific, resigns from the World Assembly, or fails to maintain an endorsement level within the range required of Council members for more than eight days, the Vice Delegate will be removed from office.
...
24. The Security Council Law is to be applied in a reasonable manner.
The above statutes would be taken as guidance when considering an accusation of Gross Misconduct against a Vice Delegate.
Specifically, when the Vice Delegate nation were to fail to have more than the smaller of 300 or half the endorsements of the serving Delegate nation for more than 8 days, the Vice Delegate would be removed from office automatically, but when they seek to disregard that or fail to maintain an endorsement level of 75 per cent of the serving Delegate nations' in an "unreasonable" context, they could be committing Gross Misconduct through nonfeasance in office in a gross or excessive manner.
Please note that when clause 24 was added, Chapter 5 was titled "Security Council Law." The chapter has since been retitled as "Regional Security Law". This leaves room for ambiguity for interpreting the scope of clause 24 - does it only apply to those parts of the chapter that explicitly relate to the Security Council? In this ruling, we hold to the understanding that the clause applies to the entirety of the chapter, lacking clear guidance otherwise.
It would help keep the Court's work consistent if the Regional Assembly were to resolve this ambiguity of language, one way or another.
Question Three - Is it a crime for a nation that is not the Vice Delegate to have the second most endorsements in the region?
It's not a crime merely to have more endorsements than the Vice Delegate: crimes are strictly defined in the criminal code (as per clause 1), and that's not one of them. In general, Reckless Endorsement Gathering is not a crime, but is a cause for ejection.
However, a Citizen could conceivably commit Gross Misconduct by violating their oath as citizen in egregious cases of Reckless Endorsement Gathering:
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 citizenship in The North Pacific.
Question Four - Is it a crime for a person to do any thing which would cause the Vice Delegate to not have the second most endorsements in the region?
Endorsing another nation cannot be a crime, as per the bill of rights. "Any thing" is too broad to answer.
Question Five - Is Clause 21 of Chapter 5 of The North Pacific Legal Code, permitting but not requiring the Delegate to eject or ban nations with more endorsements than the Vice Delegate invalid because it violates the Bill of Rights' guarantee of equal protection?
Said clause:
21. The Delegate may eject or ban for reckless endorsement gathering any nation in The North Pacific which exceeds the Vice Delegate's endorsement count.
The use of clause 21 to eject political opponents, nations whose name begins with a particular letter, or in other such ways would violate the bill of rights:
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution.
It would not violate the bill of rights to exercise the granted discretion to only eject nations that pose an actual threat or flagrantly disregard requests to temper their endorsement gathering or otherwise in a manner that serves the interests of the region.
Furthermore, clause 24 requires that 21 be applied in a "reasonable manner". This can be understood as requiring care to be reasonable when exercising that power of ejection, which conventionally includes "being reasonable" toward others - that is to say, it includes a degree of leniency when possible.
The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
If and when the only nation with more endorsements than the Vice Delegate besides the Delegate is not a member of the Security Council, and the Delegate declines to remove them despite advice from the Security Council to do so, there could be concerns regarding equal and fair treatment.
In any case of ejection, nations are entitled to judicial review of their ejection, which can be used to enforce these protections:
8. No Nation shall be ejected from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Should any official of a government authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.
Question One - Did Vice Delegate Bootsie, Security Counselor Plembobria, or Delegate Lord Ravenclaw break the law when the nation of Plembobria passed Bootsie's nation of Guslantis' endorsement count, or when Cheongji passed Guslantis' endorsement count?
The Court cannot give a criminal verdict in a request for review, nor rule on an indictment sight unseen.
However, the answers to questions two through five suggest that Lord Ravenclaw did not break the law by declining to eject either Cheongji or Plembobria, that as no claim has been made that Guslantis failed to have at least 75% of the serving Delegate's endorsement count there is no basis presented to consider Bootsie to have committed Gross Misconduct, and that as no case has been made that Plembobria acted irresponsibly there is no basis presented to consider Plembobria to have committed the same.
As the Security law's clause 24 recognizes, achieving exact adherence with the endorsement level mandates is not always practicable. The resolution of such practical questions belongs with the Delegate, Vice Delegate, and Security Council in the first instance. The Court is better placed to review their judgements than to micromanage them in the execution of their core duties. It would be inappropriate to speak further on legality with the actions available for review.
I thank the Court for its exceedingly prompt and thorough answer!
If there is room for clarification, I have a followup question about point 4.
Take a hypothetical case of a nation beginning an unendorsement campaign against a vice delegate. In such a case, the Court is certainly correct that no crime can be found in a nation's action of choosing to withdraw its endorsement from the VD - the right to give and take endorsements is explicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
We would not, however, extend that same protection to the nation who was running the unendorsement campaign. They may or may not be committing some crime (subject, I am sure, to long deliberation on freedom of speech vs. treason), but we do not explicitly protect that action in the same way as we recognize the rights of the endorsement itself.
One could take a similar look at not an unendorsement campaign against the vice delegate, but an endorsement campaign for oneself. The nations responding to one's telegram are without any guilt, but the act of soliciting those endorsements when that solicitation pushes one above the VD is a different question. Again, it may be a protected action, and I would guess it would be more likely to be protected than the reverse (as long as the goal was solely to exceed the VD in endorsements, as attempting to exceed the delegate's count is certainly criminal), but it is not something that is explicitly protected.
In this request for review, I was not so much wondering if there is anything at all that could be illegal (to which the answer is almost always "probably" ), but rather if the act of soliciting endorsements to rise above the VD's count (either by intention or by effect) is protected by law.
), but rather if the act of soliciting endorsements to rise above the VD's count (either by intention or by effect) is protected by law.