Recent events have reminded me that we should probably put this back into the law somewhere.
Need to add an ellipsis before 7.2, and also The East Pacific, not the.
Otherwise, I support this, but perhaps for the sake of residents’ rights, “Non-citizens banned or ejected from The East Pacific on a suspicion of an indictable offense must be prosecuted by the Praesidium within three days of their banishment or ejection, or else the punishment will automatically be reversed by Conclave.”
Furthermore, “If no procedure exists, this overrule shall be done by a 2/3 majority vote of all Viziers” feels unnecessary. There’s many places in law where we just say “SOs can decide this” without doing a condition for if there’s no SOs and even if the SOP doesn’t officially say anything about overriding this particular thing, the SOP has general procedures for decision-making which it would default to anyway.
Also, how would you override a refusal to ban someone? Especially if you have the power to ban them anyway? Like… that part doesn’t make sense to me.
Can you give examples as to how someone can be a significant risk without them committing an indictable offense? I’m not sure why this is necessary.
Moving into the region from a jump point alongside other updaters and endorsing the secondmost endorsed nation to bump them into the Delegacy when they are close in endorsements to the WA Delegate is one example that comes to mind.
Made some changes. I don’t think the first paragraph is wholly nessecary, given the changes. The intent isn’t to nessecarily allow banning of individuals (I feel that should only be for named offenses or prohibition), but to ban specific nations said individuals are using to cause issues. If we want to ban the individual as a totality, then we should raise a court case against them if there’s an indictable offense at play.
Pretty much what Aiv said. Our laws don’t cover everything, yet people can still cause issues that merit banning them - particularily when we wish to purge our region of militant attacks.
I don’t think this really harms us, but it does give us legal backing that’s great to have on principle in certain situations.
Does the Delegate not hold veto over the Praesidium exercising this power?
Not by my reading. A world where the Delegate can stop the Praesidium from banning security threats would be quite dangerous
I guess a world where there Praesidium can stop the Delegate from banning security threats is slightly less dangerous. They can always appeal to the Conclave either way.
The Praesidium is the security branch, so it makes sense for them being able to overrule a Delegate exercise of this power but not the other way around. And indeed, in any case appeals can be made to the Conclave - multiple checks here.
I motion this to vote.
Seconded and Acknowledged.