[TWI Only] Supreme Court of The Western Isles

[Cottoria]

Wait voting on the size or Tuernia's amendment?

I do not like the amendment but I don't see anything wrong with it constitutionally so my votes is yea
But one question how will we remove the 2 justices?

[Covonant]

Wait voting on the size or Tuernia's amendment?

I do not like the amendment but I don't see anything wrong with it constitutionally so my votes is yea
But one question how will we remove the 2 justices?

I read where they will be removed on the bases of seniority.

[Covonant]

I am also a yes for the amendment. I too want to know how really are we going to remove two justices. I read where it stated on the grounds of seniority, but if some are inactive, would that be a factor.

[Linaviar]

I am also a yes for the amendment. I too want to know how really are we going to remove two justices. I read where it stated on the grounds of seniority, but if some are inactive, would that be a factor.

I lodge my vote as AYE

As for the removal, the bill states that removal will be by seniority, however noting that Landinium has actually resigned and this resignation has simply not been processed, he will not be included in this removal process. Officially, Covonant will be the first to be removed, but considering that Vancouvia has revealed that PPU will be resigning to take up the position of Secretary of Information no removals will likely be necessary.

[Wildelyn]

Aye, While i disagree with displacing the amount of Judges i actually think this is a good benefactor as it would make the supreme court faster and possibly less relayed on having multiple Judges vote which may take a lot of time and i dont really see this logically as 'Elitist' as described by PPU and such.

[Linaviar]

Seeing as adequate time has passed, I'm going to close the voting period with the result being 4-0-1.

[Tuernia]

The Court needs to begin consideration of this.

World Assembly Delegate Procedures Act

---

An act to amend the Constitution, detailing how the World Assembly Delegate should operate.

---

Amendment

(1) Article II, Section 9 of the Constitution is amended thusly:

"The Non-Executive Delegate is not an officer position. The Non-Executive Delegate has no authority or powers."

(2) Article II, Section 11 is moved to be Article II, Section 12.

(3) Article II, Section 11 is created as the following:

"Section 11: Delegate Procedures
The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to approve any proposals. The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to vote as they wish except for in the following circumstances (ranked in order of precedence):
-A 60% super-majority of WA nations in the region are voting either 'for' or 'against', in which case the delegate shall vote with the super-majority
-The author of the resolution is a member of the region, in which case the delegate shall vote 'for'
-The author of the resolution is a member of an allied region that has a treaty concerning the mutual support of resolutions, in which case the delegate shall vote with the allied region"

[Covonant]

I am having a bit of a problem with this amendment, personally I read the constitution to see what was the role of the WA delegate, and it lacked in terms of the role the delegate would play, and I assume this amendment should clarify its roles. I personally don't see where this amendment is needed at this time. For 1, the constitution touched the overall role of the delegate, but it more speaks to the selection of the delegate. The amendment seems to outline more how the delegate voting should be done. And I see some areas of the amendment that I think will cause some problems if this amendment is passed.

1. The amendment states that the WA delegate shall be free to approve any proposal with exceptions. From my understanding the exceptions are kinda conflicting. For instance, where the delegate has to vote along the lines of the 60% super-majority but should also vote in agreement with a resolution that was drafted by a member of the region, or a member of a allied region where a treaty is signed between two regions, then the delegate should also sign in favour of that resolution.

2. The conflict I see happening if this amendment is agreed on, is the case where the 60% super-majority has disagreed on a resolution and that resolution was drafted by a member of this region or an allied region, who is the delegate suppose to vote with. Now I believe the delegate is a representative of us as a region in the WA, and being our representative I would understand where he/she should portray voting patterns that resembles the majority of the region, but when the majority of the region votes differently on resolutions from members of this region, the amendment fails to state what the delegate position would be in that situation.

[Tuernia]

Justice, the Senate foresaw this conflict, and that is why we included the portion in bold.

The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to approve any proposals. The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to vote as they wish except for in the following circumstances (ranked in order of precedence)

[Linaviar]

-snip-

Yeah, coming back from my period of reduced activity, so I'll get the opening post up.

And Covonant, for future reference the second post on the thread contains a template that should be used when opening debates on amendments; using that will make keeping track of where debate begins and the results of said debate much easier.

Also, seeing as Cottoria has announced that he is on vacation with family, Wildelyn will be filling in for him until such a time as Cottoria can resume his duties.

[Linaviar]

Proposed: World Assembly Delegate Procedures Act

---

Purpose: To detail the voting behaviour of the WA Delegate given specified conditions

Legislation Text

---

World Assembly Delegate Procedures Act

---

An act to amend the Constitution, detailing how the World Assembly Delegate should operate.

---

Amendment

(1) Article II, Section 9 of the Constitution is amended thusly:

"The Non-Executive Delegate is not an officer position. The Non-Executive Delegate has no authority or powers."

(2) Article II, Section 11 is moved to be Article II, Section 12.

(3) Article II, Section 11 is created as the following:

"Section 11: Delegate Procedures
The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to approve any proposals. The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to vote as they wish except for in the following circumstances (ranked in order of precedence):
-A 60% super-majority of WA nations in the region are voting either 'for' or 'against', in which case the delegate shall vote with the super-majority
-The author of the resolution is a member of the region, in which case the delegate shall vote 'for'
-The author of the resolution is a member of an allied region that has a treaty concerning the mutual support of resolutions, in which case the delegate shall vote with the allied region"

The proposed legislation is hereby open for debate
WITHDRAWN by the Senate

[Wildelyn]

1. Why is the WA Delegate subjugated to a majority? Shouldn't he be regarded as a normal WA Member and Nation of the Region with just a formal title to represent our region in the World Assembly Delegations?

Problem i have here i that i feel the WA Delegate is too subjugated to the wrath of the Majority, what if the WA delegate does not want to? Should that not be a moral and justified constitutional issue? Its like a member(SPEAKER) of the Senate voting on a legislation that has 50/50 and is subjugated to that because people are forcing him.

The WA Delegate should be free and entitled to do his own choices but should represent and operate accordingly to the constitution.
"Section 11: Delegate Procedures
The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to approve any proposals. The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to vote as they wish except for in the following circumstances (ranked in order of precedence):
-A 60% super-majority of WA nations in the region are voting either 'for' or 'against', in which case the delegate shall vote with the super-majority
-The author of the resolution is a member of the region, in which case the delegate shall vote 'for'
-The author of the resolution is a member of an allied region that has a treaty concerning the mutual support of resolutions, in which case the delegate shall vote with the allied region"

Makes it a lot like puppetization of the WA Delegation, in which i disagree highly both legally, constitutionally and morally.

[Linaviar]

1. Why is the WA Delegate subjugated to a majority? Shouldn't he be regarded as a normal WA Member and Nation of the Region with just a formal title to represent our region in the World Assembly Delegations?

Problem i have here i that i feel the WA Delegate is too subjugated to the wrath of the Majority, what if the WA delegate does not want to? Should that not be a moral and justified constitutional issue? Its like a member(SPEAKER) of the Senate voting on a legislation that has 50/50 and is subjugated to that because people are forcing him.

The WA Delegate should be free and entitled to do his own choices but should represent and operate accordingly to the constitution.
"Section 11: Delegate Procedures
The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to approve any proposals. The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to vote as they wish except for in the following circumstances (ranked in order of precedence):
-A 60% super-majority of WA nations in the region are voting either 'for' or 'against', in which case the delegate shall vote with the super-majority
-The author of the resolution is a member of the region, in which case the delegate shall vote 'for'
-The author of the resolution is a member of an allied region that has a treaty concerning the mutual support of resolutions, in which case the delegate shall vote with the allied region"

Makes it a lot like puppetization of the WA Delegation, in which i disagree highly both legally, constitutionally and morally.

You bring up good points, but I will argue that your statement, while correct, over complicates a pretty cut and dry fact. Article VII, Section 1, Clause 1 of the constitution states...

To freely vote in the World Assembly.

This amendment is in blatant violation of the right to freely vote in the WA, and as such I feel as though further debate is merely beating a dead horse.

I motion to vote on the proposed legislation.

[Covonant]

I second the motion to vote.

[Covonant]

-snip-

Yeah, coming back from my period of reduced activity, so I'll get the opening post up.

And Covonant, for future reference the second post on the thread contains a template that should be used when opening debates on amendments; using that will make keeping track of where debate begins and the results of said debate much easier.

Also, seeing as Cottoria has announced that he is on vacation with family, Wildelyn will be filling in for him until such a time as Cottoria can resume his duties.

Ok, I thought there was already one which was above my statement but i understand that it is not the thread that contains the template, but a reminder that we should give a vote on the amendment. Thanks for letting me know.

[Linaviar]

The motion passes with one second.

I vote NAY on the legislation.

[Tuernia]

Justices, the Senate withdraws the amendment

[Linaviar]

Justices, the Senate withdraws the amendment

Updated as requested.

[Linaviar]

Proposed: World Assembly Delegate Procedures Act

---

Purpose: To amend the Constitution, detailing how the World Assembly Delegate should operate.

Legislation Text

---

World Assembly Delegate Procedures Act

---

An act to amend the Constitution, detailing how the World Assembly Delegate should operate.

---

Amendment

(1) Article II, Section 9 of the Constitution is amended thusly:

"The Non-Executive Delegate is not an officer position. The Non-Executive Delegate has no authority or powers."

(2) Article II, Section 11 is moved to be Article II, Section 12.

(3) Article II, Section 11 is created as the following:

"Section 11: Delegate Procedures
The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to approve any proposals. The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to vote as they wish except for in the following circumstances (ranked in order of precedence):
-A 70% super-majority of WA nations in the region are voting either 'for' or 'against', in which case the delegate shall vote with the super-majority
-The author of the resolution is a member of the region, in which case the delegate shall vote 'for'
-The author of the resolution is a member of an allied region that has a treaty concerning the mutual support of resolutions, in which case the delegate shall vote with the allied region"

(4) Article VII, Section 1, Clause 9 is amended thusly:

"9. To freely vote in the World Assembly, with the exception of the World Assembly Delegate, whose voting may be directed by law.

The proposed legislation is hereby open for debate
The proposed legislation has been REJECTED by a vote of 0-3-0

[Cottoria]

Proposed: World Assembly Delegate Procedures Act

---

Purpose: To amend the Constitution, detailing how the World Assembly Delegate should operate.

Legislation Text

---

World Assembly Delegate Procedures Act

---

An act to amend the Constitution, detailing how the World Assembly Delegate should operate.

---

Amendment

(1) Article II, Section 9 of the Constitution is amended thusly:

"The Non-Executive Delegate is not an officer position. The Non-Executive Delegate has no authority or powers."

(2) Article II, Section 11 is moved to be Article II, Section 12.

(3) Article II, Section 11 is created as the following:

"Section 11: Delegate Procedures
The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to approve any proposals. The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to vote as they wish except for in the following circumstances (ranked in order of precedence):
-A 70% super-majority of WA nations in the region are voting either 'for' or 'against', in which case the delegate shall vote with the super-majority
-The author of the resolution is a member of the region, in which case the delegate shall vote 'for'
-The author of the resolution is a member of an allied region that has a treaty concerning the mutual support of resolutions, in which case the delegate shall vote with the allied region"

(4) Article VII, Section 1, Clause 9 is amended thusly:

"9. To freely vote in the World Assembly, with the exception of the World Assembly Delegate, whose voting may be directed by law.

The proposed legislation is hereby open for debate

is the only thing being changed Article VII, Section 1, Clause 9?

[Linaviar]

is the only thing being changed Article VII, Section 1, Clause 9?

That, and a change from the requirement of a 60% supermajority to a 70% supermajority. I have to do something quickly, so I'll let you have the floor for now.

[Covonant]

Proposed: World Assembly Delegate Procedures Act

---

Purpose: To amend the Constitution, detailing how the World Assembly Delegate should operate.

Legislation Text

---

World Assembly Delegate Procedures Act

---

An act to amend the Constitution, detailing how the World Assembly Delegate should operate.

---

Amendment

(1) Article II, Section 9 of the Constitution is amended thusly:

"The Non-Executive Delegate is not an officer position. The Non-Executive Delegate has no authority or powers."

(2) Article II, Section 11 is moved to be Article II, Section 12.

(3) Article II, Section 11 is created as the following:

"Section 11: Delegate Procedures
The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to approve any proposals. The World Assembly Delegate shall be free to vote as they wish except for in the following circumstances (ranked in order of precedence):
-A 70% super-majority of WA nations in the region are voting either 'for' or 'against', in which case the delegate shall vote with the super-majority
-The author of the resolution is a member of the region, in which case the delegate shall vote 'for'
-The author of the resolution is a member of an allied region that has a treaty concerning the mutual support of resolutions, in which case the delegate shall vote with the allied region"

(4) Article VII, Section 1, Clause 9 is amended thusly:

"9. To freely vote in the World Assembly, with the exception of the World Assembly Delegate, whose voting may be directed by law.

The proposed legislation is hereby open for debate

So the only change to the amendment is the 60% super majority moving to 70% but it still hinders the delegates choice of free will as his/ her decisions will never be free as it will always be dictated by someone or a group of nations. There is not much change here and the changes made doesn't rectify the conflict that I expressed previously that will occur if this amendment is made. Conflicts such as:

1. The amendment states that the WA delegate shall be free to approve any proposal with exceptions. From my understanding the exceptions are kinda conflicting. For instance, where the delegate has to vote along the lines of the 60% super-majority now 70% but should also vote in agreement with a resolution that was drafted by a member of the region, or a member of a allied region where a treaty is signed between two regions, then the delegate should also sign in favour of that resolution.

2. The conflict I see happening if this amendment is agreed on, is the case where the 60% super-majority now 70% has disagreed on a resolution and that resolution was drafted by a member of this region or an allied region, who is the delegate suppose to vote with. Now I believe the delegate is a representative of us as a region in the WA, and being our representative I would understand where he/she should portray voting patterns that resembles the majority of the region, but when the majority of the region votes differently on resolutions from members of this region, the amendment fails to state what the delegate position would be in that situation.

There is little change made to the proposal and it is limited in terms of how the delegate would respond to any problems that will arise.

[Linaviar]

So the only change to the amendment is the 60% super majority moving to 70% but it still hinders the delegates choice of free will as his/ her decisions will never be free as it will always be dictated by someone or a group of nations. There is not much change here and the changes made doesn't rectify the conflict that I expressed previously that will occur if this amendment is made. Conflicts such as:

1. The amendment states that the WA delegate shall be free to approve any proposal with exceptions. From my understanding the exceptions are kinda conflicting. For instance, where the delegate has to vote along the lines of the 60% super-majority now 70% but should also vote in agreement with a resolution that was drafted by a member of the region, or a member of a allied region where a treaty is signed between two regions, then the delegate should also sign in favour of that resolution.

2. The conflict I see happening if this amendment is agreed on, is the case where the 60% super-majority now 70% has disagreed on a resolution and that resolution was drafted by a member of this region or an allied region, who is the delegate suppose to vote with. Now I believe the delegate is a representative of us as a region in the WA, and being our representative I would understand where he/she should portray voting patterns that resembles the majority of the region, but when the majority of the region votes differently on resolutions from members of this region, the amendment fails to state what the delegate position would be in that situation.

There is little change made to the proposal and it is limited in terms of how the delegate would respond to any problems that will arise.

This is already covered by the legislation, as the conditions are ranked by order of precedence, so in your example the delegate would vote with the 70% supermajority. Hence, your legal concerns are actually not relevant as it's all taken care of in the legislation.

Now, for my own problems with this amendment. By changing Section 9 of the Rights of Nation's they've eliminated our prior criticism, but I will argue that the change itself is actually unconstitutional as it falls afoul of Section 4 of the Rights of Nations, which guarantees all member nations "...an equal voice, status, and treatment." With this being unconstitutional, it would be our duty to deny it passage and strike it down. If I could get thoughts on this matter from my fellow justices?

[Covonant]

So the only change to the amendment is the 60% super majority moving to 70% but it still hinders the delegates choice of free will as his/ her decisions will never be free as it will always be dictated by someone or a group of nations. There is not much change here and the changes made doesn't rectify the conflict that I expressed previously that will occur if this amendment is made. Conflicts such as:

1. The amendment states that the WA delegate shall be free to approve any proposal with exceptions. From my understanding the exceptions are kinda conflicting. For instance, where the delegate has to vote along the lines of the 60% super-majority now 70% but should also vote in agreement with a resolution that was drafted by a member of the region, or a member of a allied region where a treaty is signed between two regions, then the delegate should also sign in favour of that resolution.

2. The conflict I see happening if this amendment is agreed on, is the case where the 60% super-majority now 70% has disagreed on a resolution and that resolution was drafted by a member of this region or an allied region, who is the delegate suppose to vote with. Now I believe the delegate is a representative of us as a region in the WA, and being our representative I would understand where he/she should portray voting patterns that resembles the majority of the region, but when the majority of the region votes differently on resolutions from members of this region, the amendment fails to state what the delegate position would be in that situation.

There is little change made to the proposal and it is limited in terms of how the delegate would respond to any problems that will arise.

This is already covered by the legislation, as the conditions are ranked by order of precedence, so in your example the delegate would vote with the 70% supermajority. Hence, your legal concerns are actually not relevant as it's all taken care of in the legislation.

Now, for my own problems with this amendment. By changing Section 9 of the Rights of Nation's they've eliminated our prior criticism, but I will argue that the change itself is actually unconstitutional as it falls afoul of Section 4 of the Rights of Nations, which guarantees all member nations "...an equal voice, status, and treatment." With this being unconstitutional, it would be our duty to deny it passage and strike it down. If I could get thoughts on this matter from my fellow justices?

So what the proposal is implying is that the super-majority will be the determinant factor which dictates how the delegate should vote and if in any instance there is not a majority vote of 70% then the other options can be used that is my understanding from your explanation and I believe it is right. But regardless of ranking precedence, the delegate will not be portraying their free will on a matter and I agree with you that it is unconstitutional in relation to Section 4 of the Rights of Nations, which guarantees equal voice, status and treatment to all nations. As the delegate would be disadvantaged in expressing their equal voice on a matter.

[Cottoria]

This is already covered by the legislation, as the conditions are ranked by order of precedence, so in your example the delegate would vote with the 70% supermajority. Hence, your legal concerns are actually not relevant as it's all taken care of in the legislation.

Now, for my own problems with this amendment. By changing Section 9 of the Rights of Nation's they've eliminated our prior criticism, but I will argue that the change itself is actually unconstitutional as it falls afoul of Section 4 of the Rights of Nations, which guarantees all member nations "...an equal voice, status, and treatment." With this being unconstitutional, it would be our duty to deny it passage and strike it down. If I could get thoughts on this matter from my fellow justices?

So what the proposal is implying is that the super-majority will be the determinant factor which dictates how the delegate should vote and if in any instance there is not a majority vote of 70% then the other options can be used that is my understanding from your explanation and I believe it is right. But regardless of ranking precedence, the delegate will not be portraying their free will on a matter and I agree with you that it is unconstitutional in relation to Section 4 of the Rights of Nations, which guarantees equal voice, status and treatment to all nations. As the delegate would be disadvantaged in expressing their equal voice on a matter.

I am with Covonant on this matter, I never liked this part of our constitution and feel that it is infringing on the right of the Delegate, while I see that the delegate should look at it's own region to make a decision, I just don't feel that forcing them to vote one way is appropriate. My fellow justices have said the other reason I don't like this amendment and at this time I am prepared to vote against this amendment as it seem that it doesn't protect the right of the nation and instead hurts it. I hope to see soon an amendment removing this from the constitution