[Shelved] The Formulating Acceptable Solutions in Creating Impediments to Stop Threats (FASCIST) Amendment

The FASCIST Amendment:

1. Section 6.1 of the legal code shall be amended as such:

Section 6.1 of the Legal Code:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate the citizenship applicant and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 7 days to perform a security evaluation and pass or fail the applicant. The Vice Delegate must consult the Security Council if there is reasonable concern as to whether an applicant should be admitted.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it. The vote must begin two days after the rejection occurs.
8. The Regional Assembly may authorize the preemptive failure of a security evaluation for an applicant by majority vote.
9. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The reason why I am proposing this is because of the great dislike to @Pallaith's proposal, which is to explicitly state the rejection of fascists in the Legal Code. The contradictions with the Bill of Rights form part of my reasoning, though my concerns would be more about setting in stone with regards to rejecting personnel with fascist backgrounds OOCly.

The aim of this amendment would be to change the way things work. Rather than having to come back to proposing a law when we decide that a particular extreme ideology is too much for the region, or that we want to take a stance of a particular user's OOC viewpoints, we could instead authorize rejections which would allow for individual circumstances to be taken into account. This also builds into the existing framework, in which the VD is allowed to use their discretion to determine what constitutes a security threat to our region. If an applicant is deemed a security threat because of his personal beliefs, we can propose such a rejection immediately.

To give citizens an opportunity to voice concerns with particular citizenship applications, we may even add more clauses to allow for grace periods should a citizenship application be under review from the RA. But I believe that needs a broader rewrite of the current laws, and given our current circumstances, I would prefer to keep it brief.

Great dislike? I had two people express objections in my thread. And my proposal only mandates the VD reject fascists, it doesn't, as GBM pointed out, actually clear them from our community. That's what LD's amendment is for. I'm not sold on trying to amend the bill of rights for this, which is why I am comfortable moving forward with my legislation.

Your legislation, on the other hand, does avoid the bill of rights issue, and the VD stretching the security check issue, by creating a mechanism for the RA to reject whomever they want. As least, that's my understanding of what you want to do based on what you've said on Discord and in this thread, but this bill doesn't even do that. What happens if the VD passes their check before the RA authorizes the rejection? The VD doesn't typically wait the full week to do his check. And the way this is phrased, they are authorizing a rejection - what if the VD still decides to pass them? The VD can't reverse the check - once it's passed, it's passed. You'd have to watch that thread like a hawk and beat the VD to the punch, and ask him to wait. Typically, the VD comes to the RA, not the other way around - what if he sees a problem person but the RA is missing the context?

I'm just struggling to see how this would work in practice. Please let me know if I'm missing something here.

Forgive my language, I am not particularly good with legalspeak. I think the phrasing could be better fine tuned, but I intended for this proposal to allow for the RA to impose rejections even before the person in question comes to the forums and applies for citizenship. Intention is to create a blacklist of sorts, where the RA points out nations who should not be allowed to pass the citizenship check.

The alternative phrasing I thought of is below, but I don't think that is clearer in that sense:

Alternate:

8. The Regional Assembly may preemptively a security evaluation for a user by majority vote.

Click to expand...

I'm against this because it's branded.

The only way this would be useful would be to forcefully prevent the VD from completing the security check while there is a pending motion. However, this would have the potential for abuse. Would be easy for some jerk to just make a motion for every applicant.

What you have here is effectively:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate the citizenship applicant and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 7 days to perform a security evaluation and pass or fail the applicant. The Vice Delegate must consult the Security Council if there is reasonable concern as to whether an applicant should be admitted.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it. The vote must begin two days after the rejection occurs.
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
9. The Regional Assembly may bar individuals from becoming citizens by majority vote. The Regional Assembly may unbar these individuals by majority vote.

Click to expand...

Rough version, but you get the idea. There doesn't seem to be a need to tie this to the VD check and create that timing issue.

St George:

I'm against this because it's branded.

Click to expand...

Concur.

Um, perhaps that acronym is not the best one to use.