'Legal Competence' proposal legality check

[Bears Armed Mission]

viewtopic.php?p=17852985#p17852985



My GA proposal on Legal Competence seems nearly ready for submission, so I decided that requesting the Modly answers to a couple of potential questions about its legality would be advisable:

Firstly, the concept of legal competence is briefly mentioned in the existing resolution on Freedom to Contract, without a definition being given there, whereas my proposal briefly mentions making legal contracts as one of the rights that come with ‘Legal Competence’. I think that the difference in emphasis between the two is significant enough for this draft to avoid being declared illegal for amendment, contradiction or duplication of that earlier resolution , but am I right about this?

Secondly, does clause #4 make it clear enough that it’s only the setting of maturity/capability-based thresholds for the listed activities by the GA that it seeks to block, rather than all future GA legislation on those topics, so that the proposal won’t be declared illegal on the grounds that it seems to be trying to block entire categories?

[Ardchoille]

Query noted and forwarded to the Hive MInd.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Oops! Sorry to add to your workload, but there’s another relevant point that I forgot to mention in my initial post here, and also another question that actually didn’t occur to me until after that _

Firstly, there’s another minor overlap as well as the one with ‘Freedom to Contract’ that I already mentioned: The recent resolution Right of Emigration includes a lack of mental competence in its list of the potential reasons why a person could be barred from emigrating, and my proposal includes emigration as one of the subjects about which the possession of Legal Competence allows a person to decide for themselves. This was deliberate, so that repressive governments couldn’t block emigration by declaring people to lack competence for that purpose and only that purpose (as some were threatening to do in the Emigration resolution’s own debate thread), but I think that the lack of details in the Emigration resolution about how competence should be determined and the lack of details in my proposal about how easy emigration should be means that this piece of loophole-fixing is a minor enough overlap that it should be — as I similarly think the situation concerning the very minor overlap with the Contract resolution should be — legal.

Secondly, it’s occurred to me that some people might claim clause #2 of my proposal is unnecessary & duplication because that aspect of the matter is “already covered by the CoCR”. However I would deny that interpretation, on the grounds that I’m actually restricting governments more for this specific topic than the CoCr does in general: If whatever other factor a government wants to use to limit recognition of competence isn’t included in the list of factors that the CoCR specifically forbids people to use as a basis for discrimination then without this clause here governments could try claiming that that isn’t an “arbitrary” categorisation and is therefore legal despite the CoCr, and even if it is included in that list then they could potentially claim legality under the “compelling practical purposes” exemption, but my wording here would actually block both of those potential loopholes as far as this ‘right’ would be concerned.
Is that okay?

[Ardchoille]

You are hereby charged with excessive scrupulosity ...

(J/k, appreciate the care you're taking.)

Yeah, thanks, seen it and will add these queries to the mix.