The Ministerial Ethics Law

*Cracks Knuckles*

Alrighty then, I may aswell share my own opinion on this.

Now I am a person who does want transparency in the Government. Though, we already have laws for that. I may aswell bring them to the table since they're relevant.

Legal Code of The North Pacific Chapter 7 Section 7.5:

Freedom of Information Act
31. For the purposes of this section "the government" refers to the Delegate and the Executive Officers, including the departments which they oversee.
32. For the purposes of this section, classified information is that which fits any of the below definitions:
Real life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
Real life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
33. Notwithstanding any process for publication, any information which meets the criteria to be classified will not be released.
34. Private government records which reach one year of age will be relocated to the appropriate Declassified Archive visible to residents.
35. At any time a resident may request the release of any private record from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
36. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive will retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government.
37. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information to the court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable acceptable criteria for classification.
38. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.

Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights for all Nations of The North Pacific Section 8:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think we necessarily need an Office of Ethics. You brought up the point of the United States Office of Government Ethics. Now, let me address this for you.

On February 1, 1977, United States Senator from Connecticut Abraham Alexander Ribicoff introduced the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Originally Ethics in Government Act of 1977). The reasoning of its introduction of due to the recent Watergate Break-in and Scandal.

Another thing to note is that the Office was supervised and managed by the Department of Justice. Which is the equivalent (or at least more likely equivalence of the Department of Justice) to the Office of Attorney General. I would rather have the Attorney General appoint its head and supervise it than the Delegate in terms of this region. And even then, we don't exactly need it. We already have procedure and laws for that and the Attorney General is an independent position for this reason. And anyways, we haven't had our Watergate yet nor will it likely ever happen. If it were to happen. Perhaps we could consider this again but if we're going to consider this, it should be an organization or bureau under the Attorney General than its own Ministry.

And your statement about Mcm and R3n. They have their own opinions. Period. Let me state a famous quote:

The Friends of Voltaire: Helvetius: The Contradiction 199:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.*

Click to expand...

Now am I saying you're in Legal trouble or I'm going to send you to Court. Absolutely not. That obviously would be me violating that quote.

And anyways, the point of why I quoted that part of the book is because while you may disagree with them, their opinions and points should not be silenced or attempted to remove their right to say it. I disagree with Mcm on well... A lot of things. But that doesn't mean I go ahead and try to silence Mcm. I don't even have the power to nor would I if I had the power to. Everyone's opinions in this region and everywhere else matters and we shall fight to the death to defend that right.

Probably my last point for my complete and full, long argument is that this is unnecessary bureaucracy. I know this sounds strange to attack my own resolution for the Regional Assembly but let's reflect on my proposed Delegate and Vice Delegate Article Amendment. We have laws for Freedom of Information so it's unnecessary to go ahead and interrogate the target. Your target in your propose in my understand would be anyone in the Executive while mine... The same. Of course these two resolutions are not the same. My point like I said above is that it's unnecessary bureaucracy and we already have laws and procedures for these types of situations.

So, what's my stance on this resolution. Absolute Nay. Sorry for seeming a little harsh but this is my opinion and my opinion only. This is how I feel about your resolution and I will fight to the death to protect my opinion. I will also fight to the death to protect your opinions however we do not share the same on this area of transparency.