Motion to override the Delegate's Veto of the Evidence Redaction Bill

Altmoras

Altmoras

Fastest Man Alive
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.
Click to expand...

As per the Constitution of The North Pacific I motion that the Regional Assembly vote to override Delegate Plembobria's veto of the Evidence Redaction Bill.

Personally I think a little tweaking to the bill might help, but hopefully this will spur discussion either way.
 
Quick thoughts:

First, I'm not sure what's wrong with the framework that the Court has come up with.

Statutorily regulating the whole field of evidence redaction might be the way to go, if there is discomfort with certain aspects of it - but I'd like to know exactly what troubles one.

If it's the possibility of a person with an interest in the trial being involved in a decision to redact at all, I think for the reasons that Plembobria and SillyString have laid out, I don't think it's practical to go about it the way the bill has.
 
Guy:
Quick thoughts:

First, I'm not sure what's wrong with the framework that the Court has come up with.

Statutorily regulating the whole field of evidence redaction might be the way to go, if there is discomfort with certain aspects of it - but I'd like to know exactly what troubles one.

If it's the possibility of a person with an interest in the trial being involved in a decision to redact at all, I think for the reasons that Plembobria and SillyString have laid out, I don't think it's practical to go about it the way the bill has.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. I meant to point out the framework the court laid out in my veto message. Thank you for bringing that up.
 
For reference, I am going to post my veto message in this thread:

This bill is dangerously broad and vague. For instance, FOIA tasks the delegate with declassifying information upon a FOI request, but this bill would prohibit the delegate from declassifying information if they are involved in the defense or prosecution of a case relevant to that information, even though it's the delegate's right to declassify any information they want, provided it doesn't include any real life personal information about players.

Another example is the SC. The SC decides everything by discussion and vote, and prohibiting an SC member from being "involved in" the discussion could easily be construed as blocking that SC member from commenting at all, if they are somehow involved in a relevant court case.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, the court has proposed it's own method for evidence redaction. It's a good formula, and it's been designed by justices, who actually understand the nuances of the procedure they are dealing with. I suggest you all look it over
 
Kondratev:
A vote is scheduled to begin two days from now, on January 9, 2017.
Click to expand...

I do not consider two days appropriate time to debate this matter. The vote will, instead, begin in four days (11.01.2017)

plembobria:
I object to the deputy speaker's scheduling of a vote.
Click to expand...

Would you have this objection be applied to the scheduling I have outlined also?
 
I also object.

Look, I know it's been a bad few days. But plemby's points are valid. "Common sense" is probably the most dangerous concept I've come across in TNP law. Because one person's common sense is another person's completely ludicrous. Now, in this case, it's not ludicrous - there is sense to the proposal. But no longer think this bill is the way this should be changed. Asta's points are valid and were pretty much ignored. Rather than overriding this veto, I think the assembly would be better off taking a step back and redrafting this flawed legislation.

I support it not being possible, where possible, for those involved in a case to be involved in evidence redaction. But it's not always possible, and this bill does not take that into account. If we want it to -never- happen we have to think through the possible situations where it isn't and legislate for them.
 
There being three objections to the decision to schedule a vote, the scheduled vote is cancelled.

If members wish to move the proposal to vote, they may do so by means of a motion for an immediate vote, which will require the support of ten members (including the proposer, Altmoras).

EDIT: I see Flemingovia has beaten me to it. The motion for immediate vote is noted.
EDIT: "it" has a "t"
 
I support the motion for immediate vote. Turnout will be higher during the elections and running this vote at the same time will ensure that the views of regular members are well represented.
 
For reference, as the OP of the original bill, I will go ahead and also object to the scheduled vote. I know this makes it five, more than is needed, but I'd still like that on the table. I'd like to work on a replacement bill which addresses some real concerns that have been raised with this bill.
 
because we have talked this and talked this. there are those who would love us to keep on talking until we have all run out of puff, and it can just be quietly forgotten.

And then the next time the delegate uses their veto to overturn 80% of the RA, people will say "there is precedent - Plemboria did it in 2017".

This needs to be knocked on the head, and delegates need to know that the veto should not be used against the overwhelming will of the RA.

This is wider than just the evidence redaction bill.
 
flemingovia:
because we have talked this and talked this. there are those who would love us to keep on talking until we have all run out of puff, and it can just be quietly forgotten.

And then the next time the delegate uses their veto to overturn 80% of the RA, people will say "there is precedent - Plemboria did it in 2017".

This needs to be knocked on the head, and delegates need to know that the veto should not be used against the overwhelming will of the RA.

This is wider than just the evidence redaction bill.
Click to expand...
"Overwhelming will of the RA?" or overwhelming will of citizens who vote for a specious bill with good intentions but dangerous consequences about which they were ill-informed?
 
Mystery Player:
Why are we rushing a vote out on this? Are just gonna gonna completely ignore the reasons this was vetoed?
Click to expand...
It's my opinion that there is more to the veto than the stated reason. I think this bill could be useful in pursuing an investigation into the conduct of government officials in the recent situation. The delegate and vice delegate have already stated their refusal to comply with a FOIA request, claiming regional security interests. To veto this bill is to block off one more potential path of having information released. The reason we want some information to come out is so we can understand what actually happened in detail.

Edit: I should note that in the event of an indictment the court can compel even the delegate to release information. If the people involved feel they have acted within the law, it would actually save everyone's sanity if they would release information quickly in order to verify their good conduct. Because right now, the evidence and public statements we do have are not very reassuring.
 
Kondratev:
Mystery Player:
Why are we rushing a vote out on this? Are just gonna gonna completely ignore the reasons this was vetoed?
Click to expand...
It's my opinion that there is more to the veto than the stated reason. I think this bill could be useful in pursuing an investigation into the conduct of government officials in the recent situation. The delegate and vice delegate have already stated their refusal to comply with a FOIA request, claiming regional security interests. To veto this bill is to block off one more potential path of having information released. The reason we want some information to come out is so we can understand exactly what actually happened in detail.
Click to expand...
Right, so a third party ought to be allowed to plow through classified information deciding what gets released without actually knowing what the criteria for determining what should be redacted are?
 
plembobria:
Right, so a third party ought to be allowed to plow through classified information deciding what gets released without actually knowing what the criteria for determining what should be redacted are?
Click to expand...
This will happen anyway if it goes to court. But I don't think Security Council or fellow government members are a malicious "third party" whom can't be trusted with government communications.
 
Darcania:
For reference, as the OP of the original bill, I will go ahead and also object to the scheduled vote. I know this makes it five, more than is needed, but I'd still like that on the table. I'd like to work on a replacement bill which addresses some real concerns that have been raised with this bill.
Click to expand...
I think this is super important to point out, for anyone who missed it. The original author does not want the veto overturned.

I think working on a replacement bill that addresses the issues I and others have pointed out is a very good idea.
 
SillyString:
Darcania:
For reference, as the OP of the original bill, I will go ahead and also object to the scheduled vote. I know this makes it five, more than is needed, but I'd still like that on the table. I'd like to work on a replacement bill which addresses some real concerns that have been raised with this bill.
Click to expand...
I think this is super important to point out, for anyone who missed it. The original author does not want the veto overturned.

I think working on a replacement bill that addresses the issues I and others have pointed out is a very good idea.
Click to expand...
This. If a bill is flawed, why let it pass?
 
Plembobria:
"Overwhelming will of the RA?" or overwhelming will of citizens who vote for a specious bill with good intentions but dangerous consequences about which they were ill-informed?
Click to expand...
Way to talk down to the RA. :clap: Dangerous to whom? Are you guarding America's nuclear launch codes? If anything, I'm starting to think there's something to hide here.

Silly String:
I think this is super important to point out, for anyone who missed it. The original author does not want the veto overturned.
Click to expand...
And? This isn't about what the author wants (presumably after being counseled by you), it's about the Delegate overriding the will of the RA.. again, probably after being counseled by you). Your words ring a bit hollow, since it's your actions that spurred this Bill.

Mystery Player:
If a bill is flawed, why let it pass?
Click to expand...
Who says it's flawed? Just the naysayers. A minority to say the least.
 
Because the delegate personally is opposed to it. This does not make the bill flawed or the delegate right.

47 of the RA seem to think he is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top