|
|
|
The East Pacific brought to you by, | |||||||||||||
|
Social
Roleplay
|
|
| Welcome to The East Pacific. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you may register an account here! I'm registered. Where do I start? When you sign up on our forums, your account may be limited to certain forums, and unable to make requests in our roleplay section. We recommend that you Apply for Citizenship to gain all the benefits of being part of our roleplay community! |
| ASBS Blows Off Some Steam | ||
|---|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 25 2014, 03:25:38 PM (420 Views) | ||
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Feb 25 2014, 03:25:38 PM Post #1 | |
|
What stripe?
|
I have been frustrated by the Conclave's technique for reviewing the Defender Act. For the record, I am not an Arbiter. Yet, this is how I would expect a judicial review should be done. I am posting it here in The Lounge because this is really just me blowing off steam, rather than trying to initiate more debate with the Conclave. My approach would be to take the legislation, step-by-step, and then determine if there is anything in the language that is in conflict with the Concordat.
Is there anything in the preamble that violates the Concordat? There is no language in the Concordat that says the region can't pursue an identity, is there? The Concordat protects the rights of citizens and nations. The preamble does not address any identity issues for nations or citizens. I also think it is important to note that the preamble clearly notifies the reader that this is not going to be your typical understanding of the word, "defender." It's going to be something unique, based on the existing culture of The East Pacific.
Nothing controversial here. It is just a name.
The operative verb in this definition is "stands." The common understanding of that word in this usage is an attitude toward a particular issue or a position taken in an argument. So if The East Pacific is going to be a defender region, by this definition, TEP would argue for the protection of innocent regions against unjustified invasions. Since TEP was once an innocent region invaded by an outside force, it seems consistent with the beliefs of the region. Is this somehow related to foreign policy? Is this an overreach by the Magisterium? What does the Concordat have to say? From Article A, Section 4, "The Delegate may ... represent The East Pacific to foreign governments, negotiate treaties with foreign governments ..." This is not a treaty. This does not create any embassies or correspondence with foreign governments. This is an internal definition for the region. Therefore, it is not in violation of Article A, Section 4. What about the last part of the definition? "... without forgoing it legal powers, etc."? This simply says the region retains all of its usual powers, so no violation there, either.
TEP "affirms" its identity as a defender region as defined in the previous section. Affirm is used to state something as a fact. In effect, this is saying that TEP already held an identity as a defender region. It just had not been said previously. Is this true? This may be an excellent topic for debate amongst the region, but it is not in violation of the Concordat. In parts (2) and (3), there are typos. We can assume it should be the EPSA, not the ESPA, but are typos a violation of the Concordat? No, they are not. In fact, typos are part of the cultural heritage of TEP. Nonetheless, it is sloppy and the Magisterium and Delegate should be cautioned to take more care when creating and approving legislation. Can the EPSA be formally recognized as a defender army? Is this a violation of the Concordat? No, the army is not part of the Concordat. It was created by legislation and it can be modified by legislation. Part (3) brings the EPSA Act into this legislation and immediately recognizes the superiority of the EPSA Act with respect to the actions of the army. Is that a violation of the Concordat? No, legislation can reference other legislation.
Section 4 restates all the rights that nations, citizens, members, etc. already have under the Concordat. It explicitly notes that this definition of a Defender Region cannot be used to mistreat any nation, citizen, or member who chooses a different definition for themselves. Is that a violation of the Concordat? Of course not. The final section is the standard enactment clause. If it is a violation of the Concordat, then all of our legislation is in violation of the Concordat. This review finds no violations of the Concordat in the Defender Act. |
|
![]() |
|
|
| unibot | Feb 26 2014, 11:25:45 AM Post #2 | |
|
Never Cruel or Cowardly
|
I agree, I thought it was a poor ruling on part of the Conclave - and mostly just judicial activism. | |
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| Todd McCloud | Feb 26 2014, 07:26:16 PM Post #3 | |
|
Planet Telox
|
Well, I stand by my interpretations. Considering there are now two acts on the floor that are repealing these resolutions, I doubt any of this debate will come to fruition. But I imagine it could be used down the road if people really feel like reading it all over. And now's time for me to blow off some steam: The attitude and atmosphere around here has sucked. And I've partly contributed to it. So let's have a better go at it. |
|
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | ||
![]() |
|
|
| Juris Lancaster | Mar 6 2014, 03:29:50 AM Post #4 | |
|
Timex Sinclair
|
*sigh* Text has meaning ASBS, a literal translation is used by people who wish to forget that people like to read in loopholes in legislation and read in loopholes into the Concordat. The Spirit of the Law is a legitimate thing, that it what i also considered. However, I will show you the problems with a text only view, and what can be done with literal interpretation. There is major difference in expressing opinion versus passing law. A law, has force behind it. Lets take a look at the actual provisions of this document as a whole, along with the situations that had been passing along with it. Context is important.
Lets take a look at SECTION 3: GENERAL PROVISIONS.
This is being affirmed as an enforceable law. This isn't an opinion, this isn't a stance, this is policy of the region that all must abide by. That the East Pacific subscribes to an ideology set in law. When you do this, the East Pacific (and its members who make the region possible) can subscribe to no other ideology. For example: This means that the Delegate could violate this law, by announcing that he will have the EPSA raid several regions in the upcoming months -- a direct contradiction to the Defender Act. Remember, this is a law. You can't violate the law, and if the law says that we are a "defender region", then you have no right to act or say otherwise. You violated the law, good-bye, then end. For example: This means that the region will take a chilling view on those who disagree with the law. This region isn't part raider, or part unique, or any other thing, it is defender one and only. If we have raider citizens they would be viewed with suspicion and be pushed out of the region either socially or though other means. Those are two examples of violation of the Concordat. 1) The Delegate is the instigator of foreign policy. While this is not directly stated within the Concordat, it is implied within our practices. The Delegate is the Chief Executive of this region, the first diplomat. There has to be a good reason why the Delegate submits the Treaty for ratification, instead of random treaty proposals from other regions being introduced on the floor of the Legislature and then being signed by the Delegate. 2) This law will have a chilling effect on free speech. You cannot have an open region if you choose sides. When you choose sides, the state will automatically provide that regional security is paramount to all other things (including free expression and free speech). For talking in these manners, you could be tried for treason, for suspicion of aiding raiders [enemies]. You will say, "They have rights though?!" Lets look.
1) The law says that the region "ought to" "respect" and "observe" the rights of those who do not share the values of defending. Why would it say such a thing, unless, if the authors of the legislation instead expected that people will be discriminated for their beliefs? The authors of this legislation knew that legislating an ideology of a "defender region", meant that some would be pushed out of the region for not agreeing with the end goals of this policy. Furthermore, saying that you "respect" and "observe" something, doesn't mean that you are required to follow it. If you "ought to" "respect" and "observe" your father's views, that doesn't mean that you must, only that you note that he is happy with his view. That doesn't mean you have to like him for his views or not talk to him because of his views. It can be easily refuted in a Defender region, that while you respect a raider's right to believe what he wants, he is a security risk to the state and must be cast out. 2) The law doesn't say anything about revoking citizenship for Military beliefs!!!!!! A defender region could easily grant a raider citizenship, and then revoke his citizenship based on the fact that he raided a region last week. 3) It doesn't protect people who actually participate in raiding. The region could allow you to believe in raiding all you want, but could simply pass a criminal law stating that the action of raiding by its citizens is a criminal offense (because TEP is a defender region), and is punishable by ban-ejection. This law does violate the rights of people to be safe in their practices and beliefs (Free expression/Free speech). We have not allowed for people to be treated differently because they are from a particular background. Section 9 of the Bill of Rights, affords the citizenry of TEP all rights and privileges not given to the TEP Government by the Concordat. This means that TEP is a government of limited powers. The citizenry didn't grant the regional government the power to deny them protection for their beliefs and practices in regards to raiding and defending. That was my thoughts, but people don't like to read long posts. So, I tried to shorten it. Much to your frustration. Further, the SOC has yet to actually be taken up by Conclave, and I believe that this is because the body is feeling steam rolled by the Magisterium. @ Unibot - This is not Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism is simply a phrase people use against the Judiciary for disagreeing with their views on interpretation of the laws. The Conclave is the final appellate court of TEP, and its interpretation is binding on the peoples of TEP. That is how the system works. If you disagree with me, that is great, you are exercising your rights. But, it is not my fault that the Defender Act violates the Concordat. If it didn't violate the Concordat, I wouldn't have said that it did. |
|
![]() Former Arbiter of the East Pacific Conclave Former Viceroy Designee of the East Pacific Conclave Former Viceroy of the East Pacific Conclave Viceroy? Conclave? What???? (That's Your Honor to you, and you remember it!) ![]() The Great Judicial Nation of Jurisdictions I have a new flag. | ||
![]() |
|
|
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Mar 6 2014, 11:13:56 AM Post #5 | |
|
What stripe?
|
What are you doing, Juris? I put this here because I did not want more debate from the Conclave. You already have your endless (and perhaps purposeless) debate in the Conclave. What did the Conclave rule on the issue of the Defender Act? Your comments here are not new. These are the same arguments you have already made. You have extrapolated a label for a region into some kind of thought police activity and created scenarios that are not implied by the law. You've taken the protections specifically written into the law so it could not be misused and dismissed them, instead choosing to go with your assumptions about taking sides in some sort of gameplay alignment argument. None of which is actual text in the law.
I just calling, "Bullshit," on this. The lack of a documented procedure from the Conclave has nothing to do with "feeling steam rolled by the Magisterium." In the post on the Term Limits Act, you metaphorically threw you hands in the air, channeled Freddie Prinze (as Chico) and claimed, "That's not my job." ![]() You're an Arbiter. You've been Viceroy. If there is a problem in the Conclave, go gather you fellow Arbiters together and set your own house in order. |
|
![]() |
|
|
| God-Emperor | Mar 6 2014, 06:42:57 PM Post #6 | |
|
Mool-Tee-Pass
|
I know I'm the Johnny Come Lately to this nondebate, but it appears to me that the section most of the opponents of this act seem to take issue with is Section 3. However, I think Section 2 has the potential to cause more issues than it's worth. In the spirit of not turning this into yet another debate on the act, I'll just say that I disagree with your argument that the act wouldn't tie the hand of the delegate to conduct foreign affairs or invite him to violate the law itself. | |
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Mar 6 2014, 08:08:32 PM Post #7 | |
|
What stripe?
|
You're new to this discussion, so I'll offer a gentle reminder. There are several other threads where this has been debated. This one is entitled, "ASBS Blows Off Some Steam." I'm not looking for more debate from others. I'm just blowing off steam.
In this thread, you'll need to quote chapter and verse of the law and the Concordat, if you want to establish a conflict. ===================== In other news, the Conclave still hasn't ruled on the Defender Act, nor have they announced a process for a ruling, if there will be a ruling, or if the repeal of the Act makes the idea of a ruling moot. Oh, one other note, the thread in the Conclave on the Defender Act has been closed. ===================== Meanwhile Unibot challenged the Term Limits Act as a bit of curious strategy. When the Instant-Runoff Voting Act was vetoed, with the Delegate stating his opinion that it would violate the Concordat, Unibot said, "What about the Term Limits Act?" And the Conclave set up a process. It excludes the rest of the region from participating, but we are allowed to watch. Meanwhile, it is not clear what standing Unibot had to challenge the law. Typically, laws are challenged when someone has been wronged. In this case, Unibot is not a two-term delegate hoping to run for a third term, so the law has no impact on him. ==================== Also, in a sudden burst of judicial review, the Conclave has decided to review one clause from the preamble of the Identity Act. And, again a process has been set up. And, again, the citizens of the region are excluded. Again, it is not clear who has been wronged to bring this to the Conclave. Todd introduced the thread with his opinion.
The decision of the Conclave to take this up is rather unique as the general legal sense of a preamble is not an essential part of an act and does not empower anyone. See this definition from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/preamble.
|
|
![]() |
|
|
| Juris Lancaster | Mar 6 2014, 09:28:44 PM Post #8 | |
|
Timex Sinclair
|
ASBS, as you noted previously, when we allowed people to run amuck in the Conclave, it got nothing done. So, I took your advice. I am sure that we can see about setting up a Public Comment Thread, but we do need our space. You requested for us to follow process, other people requested us to follow process, so therefore I brought it to attention that we need to follow process. Now.... we are following process, and people still are upset. People lament that we didn't follow procedure, now people lament that we do. This is established procedure that we have had since BARB. I hope people remember Barb. This is nothing new to TEP. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly legal for the Viceroy to have us look at legislation. He just can't vote in the outcome. If I remember correctly, all of us had discussed about getting activity into the Conclave. Now, are people upset we are active? I took your advice, I thought you would be happy.
|
|
![]() Former Arbiter of the East Pacific Conclave Former Viceroy Designee of the East Pacific Conclave Former Viceroy of the East Pacific Conclave Viceroy? Conclave? What???? (That's Your Honor to you, and you remember it!) ![]() The Great Judicial Nation of Jurisdictions I have a new flag. | ||
![]() |
|
|
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Mar 6 2014, 10:31:32 PM Post #9 | |
|
What stripe?
|
I guess people like to have me blow off steam, since they keep coming in here and giving me more reason to be steamed. Juris, the Conclave still has not resolved the issue of the Defender Act. It was that question and the lack of a procedure to which I suggested you get involved. Still no action on that front. I don't think people are upset that the Conclave is active. I don't believe anyone is lamenting the fact that the Conclave is following a procedure. And you should note I have asked the Magisterium to be respectful of the Conclave's request to limit comments to only the Arbiters. |
|
![]() |
|
|
| God-Emperor | Mar 7 2014, 02:19:51 AM Post #10 | |
|
Mool-Tee-Pass
|
I may be new to this particular discussion, but I'm not new to TEP or NS, in general. Your reminders are welcome but unnecessary. I've read all the threads relevant to this debate and the laws themselves. I was just trying to respect your wishes to vent without getting into an in depth debate while still voicing my two cents about a law that I never think should have been passed, much less have been worthy of anything other than repeal. If you'd like to talk about it more personally, any and all of my contact information is open to you via PM. If not, continue to blow smoke up your own ass, but, if you want to talk more about it here, open it up to comment by the likes of Arbiters like Juris or even potential strangers to you like myself. I can quote the Concordat all day long because, whether new or old, any possible citizen should be able to walk in and interpret it how they see fit, and anyone and everyone may be a member of the Conclave someday, so I don't think a certain member of the community should discount that just because they might feel entitled to express their opinion over others. Anybody should be entitled to their opinion, and, while I think this particular act could make new nations feel less entitled than they should be, winners usually write the history books so that's just somethin' to remember. /rant No hard feelings, ASBS. |
|
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| A Slanted Black Stripe | Mar 7 2014, 03:25:30 AM Post #11 | |
|
What stripe?
|
G-E: The issue is not whether the Defender Act was a "good" law. The issue was not whether it might make some nations "feel less entitled." The issue was whether it violated the Concordat. In those other threads, you will see I spent a lot of time responding to issues that were not, in my opinion, grounded in the language of the law or the language of the Concordat. I started this thread to illustrate how I felt a review should be done. And to blow off steam, because I had to spend a lot of time answering arguments that seemed unrelated to the core topic. I was tired and punchy. And it seemed a pointless exercise, because the Conclave never published any rules for its review. You can rant and voice your opinion and you will always be welcome in this thread because you play "Spam Points." |
|
![]() |
|
|
| God-Emperor | Mar 7 2014, 03:56:49 AM Post #12 | |
|
Mool-Tee-Pass
|
Well, thank ya, Good Sir. The points must rise. Regardless of what the Conclave may decide to publish in public, and I only say that because I'm sure they've had this discussion in private, I know they've taken your arguments into account, and I hope they're more than willin' to take anyone's into consideration. I just have to support Todd and Juris' opinion on this decision, even if my own opinion might not be in the majority, just concurrent. I just think this act would fundamentally prevent the delegate from accurately representin' The East Pacific to foreign regions, which I believe is in clear violation of the Concordat. The other issues I raised are periphery, but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be taken into consideration. EDIT: Adverbs... Edited by God-Emperor, Mar 7 2014, 03:58:13 AM.
|
|
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | ||
| « Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic » |










2:28 PM Jul 11