The Oan Isles wrote:And another thing, I can see the Almighty Repealers (Aforess, Sky Dip
Neither of whom have passed a GA repeal, ever. Not particularly Almighty.
Advertisement
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Jul 17, 2014 10:14 am
The Oan Isles wrote:And another thing, I can see the Almighty Repealers (Aforess, Sky Dip
by Defwa » Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:13 am
The Oan Isles wrote:I'm sorry I did sound rather rude. Tackling legal competence in individual situations, such as abortion or adoption would work better. Like you said, there wasn't enough character space to trully cover the scope of "legal competence". Smaller steps and pieces of legislation would work better. And another thing, I can see the Almighty Repealers (Aforess, Sky Dip, The Dourian Embassy etc.) removing this one (if it passes) a few months from now.Bears Armed Mission wrote:It requires that every member nation have and follow fair rules on this topic, whilst leaving each nation to decide what those rules actually are for themselves to suit their own circumstances & traditions instead of trying to impose some kind of one-size-fits-all rules right across the WA's membership... What more do you want?
by Frustrated Franciscans » Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:49 am
Amongst Gatesville Inc residents, voting is currently 2-11 (84% Against).Bears Armed Mission wrote:Despite the 'blocker' aspect? I hope that they read clause #4, and see how much potential WA micro-management that would prevent, before they vote...Frustrated Franciscans wrote:we are sure that the majority of the members of Gatesville Inc would like to see this resolution go back to the pit of hell from where it was spawned
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:42 pm
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:I think the idea of blockers is not common among some of my region's WA members.
by Bears Armed Mission » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:41 am
by Mundiferrum » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:16 am
Bears Armed Mission wrote:Voting has another 11 hours left to run, but unfortunately I'll have to be away from NS from just a few minutes time after now after that voting period ends. I'd be grateful if somebody would copy the lists of delegate votes as close to the finish as possible and post them here.
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:38 am
Mundiferrum wrote:Bears Armed Mission wrote:Voting has another 11 hours left to run, but unfortunately I'll have to be away from NS from just a few minutes time after now after that voting period ends. I'd be grateful if somebody would copy the lists of delegate votes as close to the finish as possible and post them here.
You keep doing that. Why do you keep doing that?
EDIT: I'm referring to the you always being away from NS a few hours before this thing, not the asking for delegates.
by Defwa » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:54 am
OOC: But with smart phones, I don't think that constitutes a valid excuse
by Araraukar » Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:19 pm
Defwa wrote:OOC: But with smart phones, I don't think that constitutes a valid excuse
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Shaktirajya » Sat Jul 19, 2014 3:54 pm
by Texan Hotrodders » Sat Jul 19, 2014 4:32 pm
Shaktirajya wrote:We, the Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, vote against this proposal on the grounds that some member states may have straightforward decentralized organic legal systems without need of codifying what constitutes legal competence. That said, we find the section on guaranteeing a process of appeal for those citizens denied 'legal competence' by their respective states to be upright and moral and we would vote for this per se should such a proposal be drafted in the future.
Vaktrihi Rajarajeshwaaryaaha Hypatyaaha Sophyaaha Netrihi Svasrtvasya Matrurajyasya Shaktirajyasya
by The Flood » Sat Jul 19, 2014 5:15 pm
by Defwa » Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:01 pm
The Flood wrote:"This cannot be allowed to pass, for it uses the false assumption that those who oppose the regime of the Flood are not objectively incompetent!"
by Mundiferrum » Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:41 pm
by Bears Armed Mission » Sun Jul 20, 2014 5:37 am
Mundiferrum wrote:Bears Armed Mission wrote:Voting has another 11 hours left to run, but unfortunately I'll have to be away from NS from just a few minutes time after now after that voting period ends. I'd be grateful if somebody would copy the lists of delegate votes as close to the finish as possible and post them here.
You keep doing that. Why do you keep doing that?
EDIT: I'm referring to the you always being away from NS a few hours before this thing, not the asking for delegates.
Shaktirajya wrote:We, the Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, vote against this proposal on the grounds that some member states may have straightforward decentralized organic legal systems without need of codifying what constitutes legal competence. That said, we find the section on guaranteeing a process of appeal for those citizens denied 'legal competence' by their respective states to be upright and moral and we would vote for this per se should such a proposal be drafted in the future.
Vaktrihi Rajarajeshwaaryaaha Hypatyaaha Sophyaaha Netrihi Svasrtvasya Matrurajyasya Shaktirajyasya
Texan Hotrodders wrote:Because we in the Federation indeed have what you have so ably described as a set of "straightforward decentralized organic legal systems without need of codifying what constitutes legal competence", I must also voice my concern that this is a direct attack on such systems of government and the right to self-determination of those nations who maintain such systems of government.
by Texan Hotrodders » Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:13 pm
Bears Armed Mission wrote:We actually have a 'decentralised' set of governments and legal systems ourrselves, in bears Armed, and tried to make adequate allowance for such cases in the proposal. You did see the clause that mentioned the possibility of subdivisions within a nation setting standards separately for themselves, hrright? But if your constitution doesn't even allow the national government to tell the other governments that they must have such standards, without telling them hwhat those standards should be then, fair enough, we quite understand: There have actually been several previous proposals, sponsored by other nations, that we voted against for that same reason"
Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.
(Regional WA Delegate for the International Democratic Union)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement