NationStates

Kerchistania wrote:Damn this sh*t is gonna pass

No worries there are plenty of people working on repeals at the moment.

United Republic Empire wrote:

Kerchistania wrote:Damn this sh*t is gonna pass

No worries there are plenty of people working on repeals at the moment.

We are most glad to hear of it.

@Imperium Anglorum - needs updated to [Passed]

Congratulations.

United Republic Empire wrote:@Imperium Anglorum - needs updated to [Passed]

OOC: In other words...

Debtor Voting Rights was passed 9,614 votes to 6,991.

Congrats, and the waves of badly written (or even considered) proposals have already begun to flow in. At least the first submitted were good, I think. They were the ones actually drafted I believe.

OOC
One repeal actually points out a contradiction that would have made this illegal if it had been noticed in time. Unfortunately, as all passed resolutions have to be considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, pointing out that contradiction as an illegality -- rather than just as, perhaps, a potential cause of legislative confusion -- makes the repeal itself illegal.
As member nations imprisoning people for debt has not yet been banned, this should have been declared illegal -- before it passed -- for contradiction of GAR#419

3. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.

Now that it has passed, however, I suppose we have to read the two resolutions together as meaning that nations which disenfranchise the imprisoned can no longer imprison people for debt.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
One repeal actually points out a contradiction that would have made this illegal if it had been noticed in time. Unfortunately, as all passed resolutions have to be considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, pointing out that contradiction as an illegality -- rather than just as, perhaps, a potential cause of legislative confusion -- makes the repeal itself illegal.
As member nations imprisoning people for debt has not yet been banned, this should have been declared illegal -- before it passed -- for contradiction of GAR#419

3. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.

Now that it has passed, however, I suppose we have to read the two resolutions together as meaning that nations which disenfranchise the imprisoned can no longer imprison people for debt.

Just to be clear: the original proposal, that was illegal, cannot now be made illegal, but the repeal of that proposal, that points out that the original proposal was illegal, is itself illegal.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
One repeal actually points out a contradiction that would have made this illegal if it had been noticed in time. Unfortunately, as all passed resolutions have to be considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, pointing out that contradiction as an illegality -- rather than just as, perhaps, a potential cause of legislative confusion -- makes the repeal itself illegal.
As member nations imprisoning people for debt has not yet been banned, this should have been declared illegal -- before it passed -- for contradiction of GAR#419

3. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.

Now that it has passed, however, I suppose we have to read the two resolutions together as meaning that nations which disenfranchise the imprisoned can no longer imprison people for debt.

Yikes. Turns out the naysayers were right after all. The "Right for the Wrong Reasons" trope applies here, I guess.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
One repeal actually points out a contradiction that would have made this illegal if it had been noticed in time. Unfortunately, as all passed resolutions have to be considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, pointing out that contradiction as an illegality -- rather than just as, perhaps, a potential cause of legislative confusion -- makes the repeal itself illegal.
As member nations imprisoning people for debt has not yet been banned, this should have been declared illegal -- before it passed -- for contradiction of GAR#419

3. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.

Now that it has passed, however, I suppose we have to read the two resolutions together as meaning that nations which disenfranchise the imprisoned can no longer imprison people for debt.

Ah well. Not much can be done about that now I guess.

The New California Republic wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
One repeal actually points out a contradiction that would have made this illegal if it had been noticed in time. Unfortunately, as all passed resolutions have to be considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, pointing out that contradiction as an illegality -- rather than just as, perhaps, a potential cause of legislative confusion -- makes the repeal itself illegal.
As member nations imprisoning people for debt has not yet been banned, this should have been declared illegal -- before it passed -- for contradiction of GAR#419

3. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.

Now that it has passed, however, I suppose we have to read the two resolutions together as meaning that nations which disenfranchise the imprisoned can no longer imprison people for debt.

Ah well. Not much can be done about that now I guess.

Sounds like a propaganda victory for a certain someone, eh? Big OOF!

Castelia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Ah well. Not much can be done about that now I guess.

Sounds like a propaganda victory for a certain someone, eh? Big OOF!

To be honest even GenSec missed it.

Fewer than four hours had passed between the first draft of this, and someone pointing out the incarceration-of-debtors issue that would have rendered this illegal.

The author of the proposal authored a seperate proposal that would have patched this loophole. A member of the General Secretariat even commented on that legislation.

It is absolutely clear that the General Secretariat were aware that this objection had been raised well in advance of the passing of this legislation.

I have always admired the work of Bears Armed but on this occasion, with the high level of scrutiny on this controversial decision, "it unfortunately wasn't noticed in time" simply doesn't pass muster.

To say I am vexed is putting it mildly.

Falcania wrote:Fewer than four hours had passed between the first draft of this, and someone pointing out the incarceration-of-debtors issue that would have rendered this illegal.

The author of the proposal authored a seperate proposal that would have patched this loophole. A member of the General Secretariat even commented on that legislation.

It is absolutely clear that the General Secretariat were aware that this objection had been raised well in advance of the passing of this legislation.

I have always admired the work of Bears Armed but on this occasion, with the high level of scrutiny on this controversial decision, "it unfortunately wasn't noticed in time" simply doesn't pass muster.

To say I am vexed is putting it mildly.

Oh, my! Someone's getting his faith in the system shaken!

Welcome to the party, friend!

If this had been true, then I guess I can say that either you guys were blinded by your love for IA, or you purposefully ignored it for the sake of what you could only call *in a deep voice* a conspiracy!

Falcania wrote:Fewer than four hours had passed between the first draft of this, and someone pointing out the incarceration-of-debtors issue that would have rendered this illegal.

The author of the proposal authored a seperate proposal that would have patched this loophole. A member of the General Secretariat even commented on that legislation.

It is absolutely clear that the General Secretariat were aware that this objection had been raised well in advance of the passing of this legislation.

I have always admired the work of Bears Armed but on this occasion, with the high level of scrutiny on this controversial decision, "it unfortunately wasn't noticed in time" simply doesn't pass muster.

To say I am vexed is putting it mildly.

But that doesn't necessarily say anything about the legality issues as such. GenSec would have intervened if they had noticed it was illegal.

Falcania wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
One repeal actually points out a contradiction that would have made this illegal if it had been noticed in time. Unfortunately, as all passed resolutions have to be considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, pointing out that contradiction as an illegality -- rather than just as, perhaps, a potential cause of legislative confusion -- makes the repeal itself illegal.
As member nations imprisoning people for debt has not yet been banned, this should have been declared illegal -- before it passed -- for contradiction of GAR#419

3. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.

Now that it has passed, however, I suppose we have to read the two resolutions together as meaning that nations which disenfranchise the imprisoned can no longer imprison people for debt.

Just to be clear: the original proposal, that was illegal, cannot now be made illegal, but the repeal of that proposal, that points out that the original proposal was illegal, is itself illegal.

OOC
On the basis of past precedent, yes.

Falcania wrote:Fewer than four hours had passed between the first draft of this, and someone pointing out the incarceration-of-debtors issue that would have rendered this illegal.

The author of the proposal authored a seperate proposal that would have patched this loophole. A member of the General Secretariat even commented on that legislation.

It is absolutely clear that the General Secretariat were aware that this objection had been raised well in advance of the passing of this legislation.

I have always admired the work of Bears Armed but on this occasion, with the high level of scrutiny on this controversial decision, "it unfortunately wasn't noticed in time" simply doesn't pass muster.

OOC
Unfortunately various RL factors mean that several GenSec members have been -- and perhaps still are -- less active than usual (We might need to consider recruiting some more members, but getting enough of us "together" to discuss that runs into the same problem...), and I myself am currently below par due to health problems.
An interesting point was raised in a repeal attempt by Firelia: See viewtopic.php?p=35190991#p35190991 for my comment about that. I'm TGing them about it, and will suggest that they join in the discussion of this proposal instead of continuing separately .

That's just like not true. As SL pointed out on the Discord:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:That's just like not true. As SL pointed out on the Discord:

(Image)

I don't follow the Discord (not enough time online available, after following the forum, apart from anything else), and disagree with SL on that point.

As IA pointed out, I don't agree that the recently passed resolution contradicts #419 (I thought I had stated this publicly in this forum also, but perhaps I'm misremembering). The two discuss different topics entirely. Some nations might choose to let even their actively incarcerated inmate population continue to vote, others may make a distinction based on type or severity of the crime. In no case does forbidding the deprivation of franchise solely for debt have any effect on the consequences nations visit upon their prisoners. The fact that some states might still be operating under an eighteenth-century economic paradigm doesn't magically create a contradiction between two unrelated resolutions.

This idea of 'creating' a contradiction was something I brought up in the thread on banning secret treaties. GA 2's good faith provision (art 9) includes all international agreements. One can always imagine a state that has an agreement which would contradict whatever it is that the resolution is imposing, and therefore, under this 'there cannot possibly be any contradiction anywhere' standard, all proposals are illegal. Such a standard is prima facie absurd.

Also, this point isn't new and brought up in that repeal. I brought it up in a repeal thread earlier. It also happens to be in the FAQ at the top of this thread.

The [AT VOTE] tag still needs changing...

As my nation believes in each individuals agency. We can only congratulate the passing of this proposal. And hope that all nations will also allow prisoners to vote.

Except for voting fraudsters for the duration of their incarceration, those cannot be trusted with the voting system since they've abused it.

Olivya Oi, WA ambassador

BA's interpretation has no basis in the text of this resolution. No mandate exists here that member states may not disenfranchize debtors. Rather, this resolution mandates that member states may not disenfranchise on the basis of debt. This has the effect of protecting the voting rights of debtors who would otherwise qualify to vote if they were not in debt. However, those populations that fail to meet other qualifications to vote in many member states, such as foreigners and the incarcerated, are guaranteed no voting rights here. The resolution was always legal.

Castelia wrote:

Falcania wrote:Fewer than four hours had passed between the first draft of this, and someone pointing out the incarceration-of-debtors issue that would have rendered this illegal.

The author of the proposal authored a seperate proposal that would have patched this loophole. A member of the General Secretariat even commented on that legislation.

It is absolutely clear that the General Secretariat were aware that this objection had been raised well in advance of the passing of this legislation.

I have always admired the work of Bears Armed but on this occasion, with the high level of scrutiny on this controversial decision, "it unfortunately wasn't noticed in time" simply doesn't pass muster.

To say I am vexed is putting it mildly.

Oh, my! Someone's getting his faith in the system shaken!

Welcome to the party, friend!

If this had been true, then I guess I can say that either you guys were blinded by your love for IA, or you purposefully ignored it for the sake of what you could only call *in a deep voice* a conspiracy!

OOC: I don't want to suggest that I'm onboard with what seems to be a personal tirade against Imperium Anglorum. I suspect that the noise of this feud served mainly to drown out the legal concerns. My good-faith analysis of what's happened is that IA has largely proposed this legislation to prove a point that a single line resolution can be passed, that's rubbed people up the wrong way, and that in all the kerfuffle, GenSec dropped the ball slightly. I guess ultimately it was contingent on those of us who suspected it might be illegal to put in a Legality Challenge before this hit the floor. It's given me a lot to think about in that regard.

The proposal is not and was not illegal for the reason that BA is insinuating. The maths don't work out in such a manner that it could be illegal. And more fundamentally, English doesn't work that way, unless it really is the case that when I write a subset of a set, it means something totally different from when Auralia writes the same thing.