NationStates

Greater Cesnica wrote:OOC: Daarwyrth is currently on LOA due to a stomach bug, but I will pass this on to him. I agree that Section two should be reworded. I have been deliberating about whether to include something like 4(b) or not.

OOC: 4b. Bear in mind that even if it's removed, member states still retain the ability to grant pardons. Explicitly disallowing it would hardly increase the chances of success.

Section 2 thingy. If the reference to domestic law is just removed, it will turn the section into no more than a general statement of a fairly weak principle. There'd be nothing stopping member states from continue to protect individual officials from legal action on, say, the grounds that they're held responsible through the normal hierarchy and disciplinary procedures in whatever organisation they're employed by. This could work right up to the national executive who in many countries are either responsible to the legislature or the electorate.

I'd be happy enough to support this potential scenario as I'm still totally unconvinced that opening up individual civil and public servants and employees to legal action from any crank is sound policy. I mean, we hardly want the WA to mandate legal action against delivery drivers for delays in delivering a pizza.

OOC: After a brief hiatus I'm back, and thanks to Greater Cesnica there is a new, amended proposal draft in the OP

Daarwyrth wrote:OOC: After a brief hiatus I'm back, and thanks to Greater Cesnica there is a new, amended proposal draft in the OP

OOC: lets goooooooooo

OOC: The proposal has been submitted! Thank you all for the feedback and commentary

Jylien Barwald, Press Secretary: "Our delegations are pleased to announce that our proposal has reached quorum, and is currently in queue. We would like to thank all Delegates who supported our proposal."

The United Regions Alliance recommends voting against this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1584731

I Agree

Bananaistan wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:OOC: Daarwyrth is currently on LOA due to a stomach bug, but I will pass this on to him. I agree that Section two should be reworded. I have been deliberating about whether to include something like 4(b) or not.

OOC: 4b. Bear in mind that even if it's removed, member states still retain the ability to grant pardons. Explicitly disallowing it would hardly increase the chances of success.

Section 2 thingy. If the reference to domestic law is just removed, it will turn the section into no more than a general statement of a fairly weak principle. There'd be nothing stopping member states from continue to protect individual officials from legal action on, say, the grounds that they're held responsible through the normal hierarchy and disciplinary procedures in whatever organisation they're employed by. This could work right up to the national executive who in many countries are either responsible to the legislature or the electorate.

I'd be happy enough to support this potential scenario as I'm still totally unconvinced that opening up individual civil and public servants and employees to legal action from any crank is sound policy. I mean, we hardly want the WA to mandate legal action against delivery drivers for delays in delivering a pizza.

I concur with Banana's view here. I don't think the proposal does much of anything. And that seems to be fine.

This one seems like the result is going to be a close one, given the current amount of votes for and against.

I do not vote for or against, I do not vote for this law at all.

Bananaistan wrote:I mean, we hardly want the WA to mandate legal action against delivery drivers for delays in delivering a pizza.

Maybe you don't lol

I don't like this as it basically makes everyone subject to prosecuting. I'm not team leader, I'm not taking liability for my country or how it reflects the union of states, I keep it simple.

If this bill were altered to instead subject WA delegates or regional leaders to laws of their underlings I'd be all for that. We'd call it the clean it up janny clause.

Hookah Castle wrote:If this bill were altered to instead subject WA delegates or regional leaders to laws of their underlings I'd be all for that.

Wrong chamber. That's an SC thing.

Hookah Castle wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:I mean, we hardly want the WA to mandate legal action against delivery drivers for delays in delivering a pizza.

Maybe you don't lol

I don't like this as it basically makes everyone subject to prosecuting. I'm not team leader, I'm not taking liability for my country or how it reflects the union of states, I keep it simple.

unless they get immunity or a pardon, I don't see what good this resolution does.

Kurogasa wrote:unless they get immunity or a pardon, I don't see what good this resolution does.

OOC: The immunity is exclusively for legislative activity, which is defined in Clause 1:

"Defines "legislative immunity" as immunity from prosecution or litigation for actions conducted in the context of legitimate legislative activity such as the casting of votes or the debating of legislation,"

This is to protect parliamentarians from being arrested by authoritarian governments for doing their duties as a legislator. Yet as the definition clearly states, this immunity only pertains to "legitimate legislative activity such as the casting of votes or the debating of legislation". If a parliamentarian kills someone on the street, robs someone, cons someone, then they won't have immunity. Because this proposal only allows immunity for "legitimate legislative activity".

Furthermore, regarding the pardons this proposal says "provided that such acts comply with extant or future General Assembly legislation and the spirit of this resolution". Pardons that would go against WA law would be illegal and thus prohibited. In addition, the spirit of this resolution proposal is to ensure that everyone is accountable to the law. That means there has to be a damn good reason for a pardon to be given.

This resolution ensures accountability to the law, which is a cornerstone of every developed democratic society. It ensures that people in power are held accountable for the things they do while exercising that power.

Daarwyrth wrote:

Kurogasa wrote:unless they get immunity or a pardon, I don't see what good this resolution does.

OOC: The immunity is exclusively for legislative activity, which is defined in Clause 1:

snip.

That means there has to be a damn good reason for a pardon to be given.

Fair enough, even though I don't see how you can enforce that last part if some government wants to weasel itself around it, but fair enough, I'll be changing my vote for it.

I’m voting yes and this whole no party seems to be out of logic in my eyes.

“ conducted in the context of legitimate legislative activity such as the casting of votes or the debating of legislation,”

That’s extracted from section 1.

That means the immunity doesn’t cover them once they leave the hall of legislature, it doesn’t cover them while they’re driving a car or on a plane or even if they’re in another nation. This is not diplomatic immunity nor is it criminal immunity. It’s to prevent ideologically motivated political arrests.

If this fails, then clearly nobody read about Turkey and their MPs.

Is this bill not perfect, probably. Nothing is. Is it better than what was there? Yes, is it restrictive in scope, yes.

This won’t let an MP go speeding down the roads blowing red lights while they run over pedestrians killing them and then park their blood splattered car in the “I’m an MP I have immunity” parking spot.

This won’t let anyone do much anything outside of the chambers of law and even then subject to most legal frameworks the fact of “legislative immunity” is easily defined at a criminolegal standpoint. If a person violates parliamentary chamber law in such a way they need to be arrested to protect the chamber against a physical threat? You know this bill won’t stop that from happening right?

This is to shut down ideologically powered court cases and attempts to drag MPs away from their jobs into needless court hearings driven by ideological convictions rather than criminal / evidence based conviction.

Daarwyrth wrote:Furthermore, regarding the pardons this proposal says "provided that such acts comply with extant or future General Assembly legislation and the spirit of this resolution". Pardons that would go against WA law would be illegal and thus prohibited. In addition, the spirit of this resolution proposal is to ensure that everyone is accountable to the law. That means there has to be a damn good reason for a pardon to be given.

Rebels are arming themselves in the hinterlands of Hew Nampshire. They have killed police, burnt down various courthouses, and mobs have stoned the governor and portions of the state government to death. The elected monarch president has negotiated that everyone can return to their homes if the mobs and rebels disarm, get granted blanket pardons, and some various twisky waxes are repealed. See eg the Federalist No 74.

If the spirit of the "resolution proposal" is to ensure that everyone is accountable to the law, would such a deal be permissible? Pardons and "uniform accountability" are necessary contradictions (commutations perhaps not). So even an ideal usage of a pardon would be prohibited. I'm not heavily for or against pardons, especially with section 2's provision:


Or in other terms, "nations can do what they want". A constable shot some person fleeing him to death? We conducted a full internal inquiry under the police regulations and found no wrongdoing. The president purposefully orders the illegal seizure of real property without compensation? We conducted a full internal inquiry and found no wrongdoing; regardless, when we try to impeach him we get nowhere because we don't have a two-thirds majority in the senate. A corporate officer knowingly sells highly addictive pharmaceuticals and declares bankruptcy to evade tort claims? The bankruptcy itself is accountability under national law; courts can now bar all future claims against him or other officers.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:Furthermore, regarding the pardons this proposal says "provided that such acts comply with extant or future General Assembly legislation and the spirit of this resolution". Pardons that would go against WA law would be illegal and thus prohibited. In addition, the spirit of this resolution proposal is to ensure that everyone is accountable to the law. That means there has to be a damn good reason for a pardon to be given.

Rebels are arming themselves in the hinterlands of Hew Nampshire. They have killed police, burnt down various courthouses, and mobs have stoned the governor and portions of the state government to death. The elected monarch president has negotiated that everyone can return to their homes if the mobs and rebels disarm, get granted blanket pardons, and some various twisky waxes are repealed. See eg the Federalist No 74.

If the spirit of the "resolution proposal" is to ensure that everyone is accountable to the law, would such a deal be permissible? Pardons and "uniform accountability" are necessary contradictions (commutations perhaps not). So even an ideal usage of a pardon would be prohibited. I'm not heavily for or against pardons, especially with section 2's provision:

Such accountability shall be under either the national, regional, and/or local laws of member states, where applicable, as well as under any guidelines and/or disciplinary measures that may be in use by a particular organization,

Or in other terms, "nations can do what they want". A constable shot some person fleeing him to death? We conducted a full internal inquiry under the police regulations and found no wrongdoing. The president purposefully orders the illegal seizure of real property without compensation? We conducted a full internal inquiry and found no wrongdoing; regardless, when we try to impeach him we get nowhere because we don't have a two-thirds majority in the senate. A corporate officer knowingly sells highly addictive pharmaceuticals and declares bankruptcy to evade tort claims? The bankruptcy itself is accountability under national law; courts can now bar all future claims against him or other officers.

Then why is your nation voting "For"?

In surprisingly walks Bram W. Schirkophf with his security detail and and Amasador Verbatimkophf and both are smoking Texkentuck cigars.
The President makes himself a post. After the President it is not like a scene seen before, but a squad of soldiers in full military dress uniform walk in with 4 flag bearers with the Texkentuck Flag, The Catholic Flag of Texkentuck, and two flags of the Union of Capitalist Conservative flags. The one flag has the emblem. The bearers set the flags in it's post behind where President Schirkophf will sit.


President Schirkophf and the ambassador take their seat.


President Schirkophf blatantly holds his cigar up to his side while sitting and states

Our nation has decided that we shall join the WA. The new renaissance is beginning.... We vote in opposition of all proposals having to do with domestic laws which nations can decide on their own. We vote for Sovereignty. We simply voted against this proposal because this law gets rid of legislative immunities which a nations supreme court can decide to do on it own. Our nation will vote for proposals which is for the international good and the good for the Union of Capitalist Conservative Republic. In being a nation of the UCCR we believe it's crucial to be here even if many citizens this day our protesting in Capitalist Bloc us joining the World Assembly.... This proposal if passed will make beuacracy by this WA more big than ever before....

President Schirkophf waves his cigar and states we will vote against this proposal because we vote against WA beuacracy in full scale. We want proposals for the international good. Not a WA that is a congress to our nations. We are reining in a new renaissance!!!! The new order is now! "hits his fist on table and takes a puff of his cigar" We ask all nations who stand with our nation to support our nation and our cause.....Feel free to fly the UCCR Flag all over the world because we will repeal! Repeal! Repeal! Much like this proposal...

Schirkophf takes a puff of his cigar and and pours himself a glass Texk Vodka.

Ambassador Verbatimkophf then states- I would like to re-state "This proposal if passed will make beuacracy by this WA more big than ever before.... We simply voted against this proposal because this law gets rid of legislative immunities which a nations supreme court can decide to do on its own". Our nation is for international law proposals and not such laws that are so domestic... We are the World Assembly which is an international world organization. Not everyones congressional body....If that's the case we will repeal most that we see a supreme court may solve....

President Schirkophf states we agree with the United Regions Alliance that another reason why we vote against this proposal is as they have stated.

Allowing full legal immunity for those involved with vaguely defined "legislative activity" simply enshrines the protection of corrupt politicians under the law. Additionally, lobbying organizations (such as corporations, powerful private individuals, etc.) could be considered to conduct legislative activity, thereby extending such immunity to them as well. For that reason, the URA cannot support this resolution.

The URA couldn't state it better....

President Schirkophf simply states a vote for this proposal to pass is a vote for politicians that are corrupt..... We stand in agreement in their view of the proposal We ask nations to vote against....Thank you

Old Hope wrote:Then why is your nation voting "For"?

Because we like it that way.

This sort of issue runs into two problems. It is both overbroad and too narrow. Any proposal which heavily restricts, eg, pardon power, is also going to run into the problem where some nations have some Bloody Code 2.0, making it not possible for a Blackstonian solution to that issue. At the same time, a proposal which allows it runs into the possibility of its abuse. A statement merely of "spirit" ("The wittle wascal has spiwit!") not actually a meaningful interpretive direction: especially when the textual basis of spirit, found in the preamble, makes no mention of exceptions to be made in truly practical or compelling circumstances (whatever standard may be applied thereto).

A law which enacts that nations must make it clear what provisions are at hand and how they are to be enforced is fine. That is, intended or not, what section 2 in this proposal does. I support such a provision. Though on the secondary question of American-style qualified immunity, which Sciongrad's initial proposal was repealed for protecting (though I do not believe it in fact did), another repeal will be necessary. That is, I guess, content for the Assembly.

Since this is close, The Assembly Delegate of Fachumonn puts all their support For this resolution, and encourages others to vote for as well.

Tinhampton wrote:

Equal Justice Under Law was passed 7,434 votes to 6,202. (54.52% support)

The Repeal had a huge margin, the Replacement an extremely razor thin one.

Sincluda wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:

Equal Justice Under Law was passed 7,434 votes to 6,202. (54.52% support)

The Repeal had a huge margin, the Replacement an extremely razor thin one.

OOC: Yes, yet from what I saw in the "Show Delegate Votes" page was that mainly was caused by the way the delegates voted, especially some of the biggest delegates. The individual nations vote had a bigger margin voting "for" than "against" than the total margin. Not drastically bigger, but in my opinion noticeably bigger.