[ABANDONED] Repeal GA #229 Acess to Courts

[Percussionland]

RECOGNIZING the good intentions of GA #229 in trying to give all citizens of World Assembly nations access to courts.

BELIEVING that this is a worthy cause deserving of our support.

HOWEVER REALIZING that GA #229 was innefectual in doing this.

NOTING that GA #229 never specefied how court costs would be paid, should a citizen be unable to pay them.

STATES that court employees must be paid their salary.

NOTING that GA #229 only encouraged nations to take a course of action that would cover the costs, and that this course of action placed the burden of the court costs on the government, and by extension, the nations taxpayers.

BELIEVING that the World Assembly should not force extra taxes upon the citizens of it's members through flawed legislation, especially when there is a World Assembly General Fund to support World Assembly legislation.

FURTHER NOTING that the resolution only encouraged the court costs of the litigant to be covered by the losing party, and failed to encourage or mandate a way these costs would be covered should the party unable to cover the court costs lose their case.

BELIEVING that this resoution is ineffectual, having only suggested two incomplete ways to cover court costs, and never actually created a definitive way for the costs to be covered.

NOTING that if neither of the encouraged courses of action are taken, the costs are left unpaid, which over time, would leave courts unable to function, unless taxes are forced upon citizens of member nations.

SEEKING a more effective and fair resolution regarding court costs.

HEREBY REPEALS GA #229 Access To Courts.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I'm sorry, I have tried to be polite and encouraging to you, but come on. You don't think that nations have worked out how to have a tax system? Good grief.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I'm sorry, I have tried to be polite and encouraging to you, but come on. You don't think that nations have worked out how to have a tax system? Good grief.

OOC: precisely.

Percussionland, you obviously have a lot of drive and even some skill for writing WA proposals, and that's great. However, you still don't quite seem to have a grasp on all the angles of writing a resolution. For the upteenth time, let me ask you, on metaphorical bender knee, to participate in the active drafting threads for a while? You started and then CTE'd for a bit. I really think that you'd benefit from participating as a debater and critic for a while, the better to get a grasp on the kind of lawyering and thinking that goes on here.

I really think it will do more to help you write a resolution then diving right into actual drafting.

[Percussionland]

The WA cannot levy taxes at its member states (which is why that part is encouraged not mandated), so, since this is created by a WA vote, it should be funded by the WA general fund. But, since this is never stated, and it cannot be tax funded, many nations may be thoroughly perplexed as to how to pay these court costs.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Your logic is completely flawed. Just because the WA cannot collect domestic tax revenue does not mean it cannot require its members to fund programs themselves. It does so all the time. You are the only one "thoroughly perplexed". I'd recommend a date with Mr. Heinlein.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: and so the poll-wanking begins. I'm about at the end of my rope here.

[Percussionland]

OOC: Your logic is completely flawed. Just because the WA cannot collect domestic tax revenue does not mean it cannot require its members to fund programs themselves. It does so all the time. You are the only one "thoroughly perplexed". I'd recommend a date with Mr. Heinlein.

Well then I will attack it from the angle of taxpayers shouldn't have to fund this when there is a perfectly good WA general fund that can do that.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Your logic is completely flawed. Just because the WA cannot collect domestic tax revenue does not mean it cannot require its members to fund programs themselves. It does so all the time. You are the only one "thoroughly perplexed". I'd recommend a date with Mr. Heinlein.

Well then I will attack it from the angle of taxpayers shouldn't have to fund this when there is a perfectly good WA general fund that can do that.

"Yes, why should any nation have a tax structure at all when we can just force the WAGF to take care of our expenses? Why shouldn't taxpayers have to support a system that exists for their protection and benefit?"

[Percussionland]

I'm not saying that the WAGF should be the member nation's personal checkbook, but it should cover costs created by WA legislation.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm not saying that the WAGF should be the member nation's personal checkbook, but it should cover costs created by WA legislation.

"The WAGF comes from national contributions. This will only lead to nations paying for their own, and possibly others' , systems. Besides, the WAGF really only needs to find the WA. Requiring members implement a system domestically is not under the same purview."

[Percussionland]

My main argument is that this legislation does not require members to implement a system domestically, and is therefore flawed and incomplete!

[Wrapper]

I'm not saying that the WAGF should be the member nation's personal checkbook, but it should cover costs created by WA legislation.

Er... you... really ought to quit while you're behind, you know.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Your logic is completely flawed. Just because the WA cannot collect domestic tax revenue does not mean it cannot require its members to fund programs themselves. It does so all the time. You are the only one "thoroughly perplexed". I'd recommend a date with Mr. Heinlein.

Well then I will attack it from the angle of taxpayers shouldn't have to fund this when there is a perfectly good WA general fund that can do that.

OOC: Where do you think the WAGF gets its money from?

Seriously, Heinlein. Just give it a quick skim read.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

My main argument is that this legislation does not require members to implement a system domestically grossly micromanage member nations' legal systems or finance structures, and is therefore flawed and incomplete perfectly fine!

Fixed that for ya.

[Percussionland]

There is a difference between lack of micromanagement and being unnecessarily vague and incomplete, and this falls under unnecessarily vague and incomplete.

[Normlpeople]

Clover sighs, seeing the author of the draft. "Encouragement is not mandataing. A nation is free not to accept the encouragement. Your understanding of the resolution is flawed ambassador. While I find your sudden concern for the taxpayers interesting considering your prior stances on economic issues, I am afraid you are up against an "honest mistake" here."

[Three Weasels]

The two encouraged means of covering court costs are conventional. The exclusion of others does not mean those methods are illegal. It simply means they were omitted from this legislation.

This repeal is trivial. Its entire argument is based on the lack of pedantic details.

[Percussionland]

I am not saying you must list every payment plan conceivably possible, I am saying that there is a better payment plan that does not put more of a tax burden on the citizens of WA member nations, and should have been enacted to place less or a burden on citizens, as opposed to not providing the legal authorization necessary to use this less burdening payment method.

[Defwa]

I am not saying you must list every payment plan conceivably possible, I am saying that there is a better payment plan that does not put more of a tax burden on the citizens of WA member nations, and should have been enacted to place less or a burden on citizens, as opposed to not providing the legal authorization necessary to use this less burdening payment method.

A payment plan that doesn't put a burden on tax payers... are you familiar with the concept of a free lunch?
WA laws leaves funding of courts up to national determination. They can choose which one is best for their nation and do the most good. At this point you're just showing a lack of understanding of the resolution.

[Three Weasels]

I am not saying you must list every payment plan conceivably possible, I am saying that there is a better payment plan that does not put more of a tax burden on the citizens of WA member nations, and should have been enacted to place less or a burden on citizens, as opposed to not providing the legal authorization necessary to use this less burdening payment method.

A nation does not need to fund its courts through taxpayer revenues. It can make courts free of charge to its citizens. It can allow citizens to pay through their own means, which can include private fundraising. There is no explicit requirement for it to be tax-payer funded. You really should "Read the Resolution", ambassador.

[Percussionland]

However, there should be an explicit requirement for the WAGF to fund this.

[Defwa]

However, there should be an explicit requirement for the WAGF to fund this.

Why should the WAGF pay for your national operations?
I don't think you know how the WAGF works. Maybe you should try to repeal that too.

[Percussionland]

Very funny. I am a supporter of the WAGF, I am saying that it should be used to fund operations brought on by WA legislation as opposed to placing a burden on the taxpayers of member nations.

[Louisistan]

"The Confederacy of Louisistan rises in full and unequivocal opposition of this weird repeal proposal and further affirms that it will not pay for other nations legal systems. Get your shit together, other nations."

[Defwa]

Very funny. I am a supporter of the WAGF, I am saying that it should be used to fund operations brought on by WA legislation as opposed to placing a burden on the taxpayers of member nations.

Where do you think the WAGF gets money?