A Bill to Fix an Ambiguity in the Regional Security Law

Eyes that do not Lie

Eyes that do not Lie

TNPer
In this Request for Review thread, the Court pointed out an ambiguity of language, concerning clause 24 of Chapter 5 of the The North Pacific Legal Code. When the Security Council Law was retitled Regional Security Law, this part of the Regional Security Law remained unchanged:

Section 5.5: Sanity
24. The Security Council Law is to be applied in a reasonable manner.
Click to expand...
Right now there is nothing called the Security Council Law in TNP, so it's unclear what this clause refers to. I think it is quite obvious that this clause is meant to refer to the Regional Security Law. So hereby I would propose the following:

Section 5.5: Sanity
24. The Regional Security Law is to be applied in a reasonable manner.
Click to expand...

Thoughts?
 
Seems like a no-brainer change to me.

Is it possible to find similar ambiguous language and kind of wrap them all up in one go, or would they each need their own separate bill? I just figured that would be a more efficient way to do it, though I haven't seen anything else that looks like a good target for revision anyway (perhaps someone more experienced with the law could?).
 
I'd rather get rid of that clause entirely, honestly. It's not that the intent is bad, but "sane" and "reasonable" are both superbly subjective terms and don't really give all that much guidance. Everybody's got their own definition, and there are lots of ways for someone to try to justify actions that someone else sees as insane and/or unreasonable.

It might be better to replace it with a couple of clauses that more clearly lay out regional expectations here.
 
^^ I hate clauses like this because the people enforcing this law are under an oath of office and if they manipulated the law out of all recognition or bent it to get out of doing something they'd be in trouble anyway.

Replacing it with something a bit more substantive would be a good idea - a clear expectation on those interpreting this law.
 
Gradea:
Support. A commonsense amendment.
Click to expand...
Pallaith:
Seems like a no-brainer change to me.

Is it possible to find similar ambiguous language and kind of wrap them all up in one go, or would they each need their own separate bill? I just figured that would be a more efficient way to do it, though I haven't seen anything else that looks like a good target for revision anyway (perhaps someone more experienced with the law could?).
Click to expand...
Thanks for the support.
The word 'reasonable' is used a couple of times in the Bill of Rights and several times in the Legal Code. Though there the word is used in a more specific context, and not just to describe a 'manner'. I think the use of this word and its synonyms can be hard to avoid in legal language. Perhaps an experienced legislator could take a look at these instances and estimate if it's desirable to review them as well (if so, I also don't know if it's possible and expedient to wrap them all up in this bill).

SillyString:
I'd rather get rid of that clause entirely, honestly. It's not that the intent is bad, but "sane" and "reasonable" are both superbly subjective terms and don't really give all that much guidance. Everybody's got their own definition, and there are lots of ways for someone to try to justify actions that someone else sees as insane and/or unreasonable.

It might be better to replace it with a couple of clauses that more clearly lay out regional expectations here.
Click to expand...
Abbey Anumia:
^^ I hate clauses like this because the people enforcing this law are under an oath of office and if they manipulated the law out of all recognition or bent it to get out of doing something they'd be in trouble anyway.

Replacing it with something a bit more substantive would be a good idea - a clear expectation on those interpreting this law.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input.
I actually agree that this clause is quite meaningless. An option would be to simply remove the clause.
But I think it'd indeed be a better idea to specify its intentions and meaning, by replacing the current clauses with language that has some teeth to it. But I don't really know what message this clause wants to get across and therefore I don't know how to write clauses that lay out regional expectations for the Regional Security Law (this is the first time I interfere with legislation :shrug: (So hi, all :hello: )). So if someone more experienced could come up with a rough draft for a replacement of this clause, that'd be awesome.
 
Um. Nothing really worked up, because phrasing this kind of thing is haaaaaaard.

One clause should deal with NS-imposed mechanics, certainly - that is, the stuff behind influence and endorsements. More specifically, it should seek to prevent ultra-legalistic application of endorsement requirements to incoming or outgoing delegates and vice delegates, or anybody caught in their path. For example, interpreted in a strict legalistic sense, the law allows the delegate to eject any nation which ever exceeds the VD's count - even if the VD is newly elected and starting from 0 endorsements, making the legal list of ejectees "anyone with any endorsements at all". Clearly, this is problematic. Similarly, it should disqualify any legal complaints against a delegate or vice delegate for taking, say, a few days to rise to their positions, given that in NS one cannot get endorsements by simple fiat but rather by tedious collection.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I like the sanity clause. It is elegant in its simplicity. Tho it does assume that those invoking it are, well, sane.
Click to expand...
^This.

I support this amendment as it stands, for the sake of eliminating any ambiguity.
 
(1) While I do not mind legislation to clear up outdated references or any other drafting issues, we shouldn't refer to there being any ambiguity. If intent is clear, there is no ambiguity. It's as simple as that.

(2) The courts, and consequently any authority conferred with any powers, rights, responsibilities or immunities under any law should interpret it reasonably, and arguably also exercise any powers granted under it reasonably. I'd prefer to see the 'sanity' clause actually expanded to all law, rather than removed.
 
Guy:
(1) While I do not mind legislation to clear up outdated references or any other drafting issues, we shouldn't refer to there being any ambiguity. If intent is clear, there is no ambiguity. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Ambiguity is often defined as 'uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language'. Inexactness is the entire reason this bill exists.
 
SillyString:
I'd rather get rid of that clause entirely, honestly. It's not that the intent is bad, but "sane" and "reasonable" are both superbly subjective terms and don't really give all that much guidance. Everybody's got their own definition, and there are lots of ways for someone to try to justify actions that someone else sees as insane and/or unreasonable.

It might be better to replace it with a couple of clauses that more clearly lay out regional expectations here.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's is generally implicit that any given law is to be applied in a reasonable and rational fashion (regardless of the rationality of any given law).
 
I hate the way you see Sanity Clause this early in the year. I think that Sanity Clause should not be allowed to be seen before the middle of December, at the earliest. However, to deny the existence of Sanity Clause totally is just cruel to all those children who still believe. Will nobody think about the children?
 
I'm not, you know, thrilled with this bill, but for the sake of updating an internal reference I will vote in favor of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top