Advertisement
by Desmosthenes and Burke » Sun Dec 12, 2021 7:38 pm
by Indo States » Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:26 am
by Telgan Alpha » Mon Dec 13, 2021 9:50 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:05 pm
by Apatosaurus » Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:15 pm
by Telgan Alpha » Sat Dec 18, 2021 12:49 pm
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:32 am
Telgan Alpha wrote:3. Member States must respect the rights of the child, in particular, it must:... faciliate social and other developmental pursuits,
...
5. Member States shall ensure the welfare of the child is protected through the legal system, which:... act as an arbitrator in regards to Section 3.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:25 am
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:41 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:*snip*
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:56 am
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:I don't have much of an opinion on whether the proposal conflicts with PFE, but I think empowering children to state their views as a general matter doesn't necessarily conflict with imposing reasonable restrictions. The two seem compatible to me in theory. Empowering children to state their views could be no more than a suggestion box where they state their views about abolishing parliament, etc.
I don't think the use of "reasonable" in PFE does anything to "insulate" the current proposal. If anything, it makes the current proposal more likely to be viewed as a contradiction, because it could be (but does not need to be) interpreted as requiring children to be empowered to state their views despite reasonable regulations established under PFE.
I've already indicated above that "empower" can mean a lot of things. I don't think it necessarily implies the existence of a right possessed by children. It's more like a mandate that member nations create a process aimed at supporting children in expressing their views.
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:36 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Empowering. If people are empowered to do something, is there a predicate act to allow them to do that thing? If so, then that would require nations to affirmatively deconstruct or exempt people from the regulations they are, under PFE s 2, permitted to create. Someone can't be empowered to state their views if, for example, those views are something like 'Let's take the mob we are currently part of, storm the Forum, and kill the praetors' when inciting people to violence or widespread lawlessness is illegal.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Reasonable. If the regulations under PFE s 2 are confined under 'reasonable', can it be 'reasonable' for those regulations to violate GA law? Drawing an analogy, a clause empowering someone to create reasonable secondary legislation doesn't allow them to create regulations that otherwise violate statute law. Read maximally, such a permissions clause with 'reasonable' would be subject to future GA legislation.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 24, 2021 1:58 pm
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Empowering. If people are empowered to do something, is there a predicate act to allow them to do that thing? If so, then that would require nations to affirmatively deconstruct or exempt people from the regulations they are, under PFE s 2, permitted to create. Someone can't be empowered to state their views if, for example, those views are something like 'Let's take the mob we are currently part of, storm the Forum, and kill the praetors' when inciting people to violence or widespread lawlessness is illegal.
It doesn't have to be interpreted the way you're interpreting it. A quick look for definitions of "empowered" include such benign things as "make (someone) stronger and more confident," and " to promote the self-actualization or influence of." In context, I think that's the safer interpretation about what is proposed when someone talks of empowering children.
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:Anyway, I still think the tension disappears as soon as you stop interpreting "empowered" in a way that possibly brings it into conflict with other laws. Real courts regularly employ a maxim whereby they will interpret provisions in a way that avoids a conflict with existing law whenever possible. That's certainly possible here.
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Fri Dec 24, 2021 4:43 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think from the context of the other subsections, the only consistent reading is that of the main definition: the others all relate to securing some kind of positive or negative right that member nations must facilitate. This too must go with those which it keeps its company with.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:Anyway, I still think the tension disappears as soon as you stop interpreting "empowered" in a way that possibly brings it into conflict with other laws. Real courts regularly employ a maxim whereby they will interpret provisions in a way that avoids a conflict with existing law whenever possible. That's certainly possible here.
I'm well aware of the validity canon.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:50 pm
by Outer Sparta » Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:01 pm
by Telgan Alpha » Wed Dec 29, 2021 5:01 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Dec 29, 2021 6:31 pm
Telgan Alpha wrote:The typo in fact was a coffee spill when the hot wax from my midnight candle had been blown away by an open window... The resulting mess was coffee and wax all over my papers. Due to rising inflation, we had no other choice, but to just accept the result. The WA really needs to invest in the printing press rather than scrolls.
by Xanthorrhoea » Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:34 pm
by Outer Sparta » Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:40 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Telgan Alpha wrote:The typo in fact was a coffee spill when the hot wax from my midnight candle had been blown away by an open window... The resulting mess was coffee and wax all over my papers. Due to rising inflation, we had no other choice, but to just accept the result. The WA really needs to invest in the printing press rather than scrolls.
What does this mean?
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:41 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Telgan Alpha wrote:The typo in fact was a coffee spill when the hot wax from my midnight candle had been blown away by an open window... The resulting mess was coffee and wax all over my papers. Due to rising inflation, we had no other choice, but to just accept the result. The WA really needs to invest in the printing press rather than scrolls.
What does this mean?
by Outer Sparta » Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:53 pm
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:What does this mean?
It's an IC excuse for poor proofreading prior to submission, and an attempt at humorously shirking the possibility of pulling the proposal for correction.
Telgan Alpha: there were multiple errors buddy. Looking for them is like trying to find Waldo in the Land of Waldos. I pointed out one thinking you'd take some pride in your work, ask to pull it, look for the rest, and submit a correct draft. Alas. Here, I'll point out two more: "faciliate" needs an extra "t" in there for it to be an English word.
Question: Am I being too harsh? It is a game for children. But then again it's also a game celebrating the written word. Given the modest character limits shouldn't we be trying harder to submit error-free copy?
Edit: Point above sniped by Outer Sparta.
by Milorum » Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:19 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:45 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement