Non-Citizen Loophole Repair

The Magisterium
1

Article C Judicial, Section 4: General Judicial Powers & Limits

  1. The Conclave may rule on the actions of the Delegate or the Praesidium and nullify any which are contrary to this Concordat or statutory law.

  2. The Conclave may nullify any law passed by the Magisterium that is contrary to this Concordat.

  3. The Conclave may remove a Vizier or Magister by a 2/3 vote for abuse of power, inactivity, or dereliction of duty.

  4. The Conclave cannot overturn any part of the Concordat.

  5. The Conclave may not apply any legislation to any situation that occurred before the legislation was passed.

  6. The Conclave may not apply any legislation to any non-resident, who is not under the jurisdiction of the Concordat, but may apply legislation on residents for actions relating to the democratic integrity of The East Pacific which were taken while not residing in The East Pacific.

––––

The Conclave recently delivered the following decision:

“In discussions about Omission, it is important to note that TEP laws are only the jurisdiction of TEP. It would be unreasonable to extend the power of TEP’s laws to also involve other regions. For TEP laws to apply to a specific person, they would also have to be a citizen.”

In my opinion, this judicial activism is outside the jurisdiction of a criminal trial and furthermore unfounded in law. First of all, non-citizen residents are subject to the laws of The East Pacific, as implied by Article E, Section 4, Clause 1, which states “Each Resident shall be given a swift and impartial trial by the Conclave if an indictment is made against them.”

Meanwhile, in the very section I am amending, there is limitation against charges for a crime that wasn’t a crime when the action occurred but no limitation against charges for a crime that was committed before the resident or citizen was a resident or citizen. Finally, the Treason Act indicates that “Every one” participating in actions described is guilty of the crime of those actions, not “Every citizen” or even “Every resident.”

However, even if we ignore all that and take Conclave’s word as gospel, it is problematic and needs to change. Clearly, it’s not explicit enough, so here is me making it explicit.

2

Let me clarify -

User A belongs to a region who hates TEP for the last 5 years and has declared war on TEP, attempted to delbump TEP, etcetc.

User A has a change of heart and sees that TEP is good and their region is bad.

User A joins TEP as a resident and aspires to contribute.

User A will then be put on trial for past actions under this amendment and banished.

Did I get that right?

3

Depending on the amount of tangible harm done, yes. And I imagine contrition will be taken into account when determining sentencing anyway. A “change of heart” doesn’t clear up five years of trying or succeeding in destabilizing or overthrowing our government imo.

4

When determining sentencing, what sentencing can be adjusted though? We only have two options, lifelong ban and 5 year ban

5

Okay so five year ban instead of lifelong. I’d also be in favor of considering more flexibility in sentencing but that’s an Act change and not an Amendment, so it would have to come later.