I guess. I was mainly approaching it from the perspective of minimalism, which this amendment seems to be desiring. Also more specific means less broad, and Conclave might want to seek order in other ways – the specifics of which I would prefer be regulated by statute rather than Concordat.
I think legally, anyone can at the present.
I guess, but my current Conk amendment should allow that through an Order of Contempt anyways.
Maybe an alternate wording: “Residents shall have the right to chosen representation in trial, as limited by statutory law.”?
its still relatively short but allows for denial of representation in a defined way
Um, sure. The question is if that would make the right essentially non-existent. Which, I mean, I don’t think it’s even necessary to be in the Conk in the first place, but some did argue against removing it.
I really don’t think there’s any situation in which we will need to deny representation for any reason other than “They’re not a resident/citizen” and if Orders of Contempt can keep order in the court, then they can already limit representation in that way.
I feel like this is somewhat overcomplicating it tbh.
Rights can exist within limits.
And while youre probably right on the denial bit, Id like to keep it a bit open ended so that if such a caze did arise we can amend a law rather than amend the conk (and thus make the clause bigger). I also dont think an Order can override a right if we dont allow that right to be explicitly limited.
The wording has been altered. If there is nothing else. I will motion this to vote tomorrow.
1 Like