[TWI Only] Supreme Court of The Western Isles

[Dibeg]

Question, does our court use a common law system or some case by case thing? For all of our native English speakers minus the one who have studied law, common law is the system you might be most familiar with as it is a English invention that was spread throughout their empire. Basically it amounts to a system of precedents being used to determine what is just and what not rather than specific laws for each thing that comes up.

That is a good question.
If we passed Vancouvia's bill, it would actually become part of common law that bills like that were okay.

[Dansawae]

Removed some things, edited some things, taking in your suggestions.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=417283

I believe that, even if the amendment continues to be an "omnibus bill"(?), its contents do not seem to be really "interest conflictive"(spanglish, sorry) and I do not think people would have real trouble in voting (for or against) it. I would like to specify that I am not a 100% convinced that this amendment should go for legislation as it is (not even close) but do not find many reasons that convince me of the opposite. *Grabs and smells a handful of money from the briefcase that Vancouvia's governor gave him to change his mind...NOT*
Also, as a response to Randmar the nose's (just kidding) last post, I would like to say that I will judge every bill by itself with minor regards of other previously passed laws."
- Z. Jouons, representing Dansawae's interests in the WI Supreme Court

[Dibeg]

An omnibus bill is a bill that has a bunch of different stuff at once. This makes it harder to debate, harder to understand (although most bills in Canada are impossible for anyone not a lawyer to understand anyways) and combines things people want with things people don't. e.g. yeah, we have this bill that provides veterans benefits and incentives to small businesses (shh. but it also allows us to phone tap more.) So if you want those first two you had better live with the third. This is a big problem in Canada right now.

However, I think that the bill sint too bad now that the chief justice bit and secretary of dissent bit have been removed.
My one issue is the number of Candidates allowed in an election. I strongly believe elections should be open to all, it is important to democracy. I think limitng the number of candidates in an election goes against the goals of this region and the intent of the constitution.
I stand opposed until this is changed.

[Randmar]

Question, does our court use a common law system or some case by case thing? For all of our native English speakers minus the one who have studied law, common law is the system you might be most familiar with as it is a English invention that was spread throughout their empire. Basically it amounts to a system of precedents being used to determine what is just and what not rather than specific laws for each thing that comes up.

That is a good question.
If we passed Vancouvia's bill, it would actually become part of common law that bills like that were okay.

Well not really if we are not using a common law system, which would be difficult since it is kind of ingrained into the culture of every country where British Empire went, then precedent would not be as big a deal.

But I was wondering because in the case Cristo and his bill,

Under the common law system he would not need to propose a bill that makes non lethal chemical weapons fair under the constitution, he can just wait to court comes up and argue for its use. If it is deemed acceptable then it would set a common law precedent that humane chemical weapons are considered fair in warfare and other court cases after this should rule the same way.

[Dibeg]

That is a good question.
If we passed Vancouvia's bill, it would actually become part of common law that bills like that were okay.

Well not really if we are not using a common law system, which would be difficult since it is kind of ingrained into the culture of every country where British Empire went, then precedent would not be as big a deal.

But I was wondering because in the case Cristo and his bill,

Under the common law system he would not need to propose a bill that makes non lethal chemical weapons fair under the constitution, he can just wait to court comes up and argue for its use. If it is deemed acceptable then it would set a common law precedent that humane chemical weapons are considered fair in warfare and other court cases after this should rule the same way.

I think it is preferable to legislate before the issue comes up, if possible.

[Cottoria]

I know I keep hearing people talk about splitting up the amendment a lot. Honestly I feel it is a good idea and I feel it should be split into 3 parts
1. Elections:
lines 1, 9, 10, 11, and 12
2. Executive
lines 2, 3, and 5
3. Judicial
lines 7 and 8

[Dibeg]

I know I keep hearing people talk about splitting up the amendment a lot. Honestly I feel it is a good idea and I feel it should be split into 3 parts
1. Elections:
lines 1, 9, 10, 11, and 12
2. Executive
lines 2, 3, and 5
3. Judicial
lines 7 and 8

I think it is better now that the two main things have been taken out. (chief justice and secretary of dissent)
now it is a jumble of small changes that have little effect, EXCEPT, the number of candidates allowed in an election. There should be as many candidtates as possible allowed in an election!
I am okay not to split it up further, but if other justices would like to, i'm okay with that too.

[Cottoria]

Are the head Justice and Secretary of Dissent out for good or will they be back on another amendment? I did like both of the ideas

[Dibeg]

Are the head Justice and Secretary of Dissent out for good or will they be back on another amendment? I did like both of the ideas

I think they will be back, after we deal with this bit.

[Dibeg]

So two questions for all other justices:
1. is Vancouvia's latest edit of the bill acceptable? (note that secretary of dissent, and chief justice have been taken out of this amendment, they will be in a different amendment)
2. What is your stance on the number of candidates allowed in an election?


To answer my own qestions:
1. yes, except the number of candidates in the election.

2. I think that we should allow as many candidates in an election as possible. This is to not constrain the democratic ideals that our nation is founded on. I believe that this is the intent of our constitution and regional vision statement. I am adamant and will not approve this bill until this is changed. If it is not changed, then it does not have my vote...

[Vancouvia]

So two questions for all other justices:
1. is Vancouvia's latest edit of the bill acceptable? (note that secretary of dissent, and chief justice have been taken out of this amendment, they will be in a different amendment)
2. What is your stance on the number of candidates allowed in an election?


To answer my own qestions:
1. yes, except the number of candidates in the election.

2. I think that we should allow as many candidates in an election as possible. This is to not constrain the democratic ideals that our nation is founded on. I believe that this is the intent of our constitution and regional vision statement. I am adamant and will not approve this bill until this is changed. If it is not changed, then it does not have my vote...

Appeased.

[Linaviar]

Four days of debate, two amendments, and two pages of forum space have gone into this bill. I believe that the concerns of the justices have been addressed and the recommended changes incorporated or politely declined. Shall we move the legislation as it is to a judicial vote?

[Dibeg]

Four days of debate, two amendments, and two pages of forum space have gone into this bill. I believe that the concerns of the justices have been addressed and the recommended changes incorporated or politely declined. Shall we move the legislation as it is to a judicial vote?

fine with me. If no one wants to change the number of candidates in an election, then I have nothing else to say.
My vote is against.

[Vancouvia]

Four days of debate, two amendments, and two pages of forum space have gone into this bill. I believe that the concerns of the justices have been addressed and the recommended changes incorporated or politely declined. Shall we move the legislation as it is to a judicial vote?

fine with me. If no one wants to change the number of candidates in an election, then I have nothing else to say.
My vote is against.

Please note I've changed the line to not limit number of candidates. "Appeased"

[Dibeg]

fine with me. If no one wants to change the number of candidates in an election, then I have nothing else to say.
My vote is against.

Please note I've changed the line to not limit number of candidates. "Appeased"

oh sorry, in that case my vote is
FOR

linav, how bout you?

[Cottoria]

Cottoria feels that a limit would be better, but I don't feel it will be much of a problem

Cottoria votes on Vancouvia's amendment:
FOR

[Linaviar]

I will be voting YEA on this amendment. Now we wait for Dansawae and Bhumidol.

[Vancouvia]

I will be voting YEA on this amendment. Now we wait for Dansawae and Bhumidol.

Do you mind contacting them if you haven't already

[Dansawae]

FOR

[Bhumidol]

I will agree with the legislation for now.

Since I have a thought that is more elaborate, I will post my thoughts on this legislation later. For the sake of expediency, this is constitutional.

- International Justice BAIS

[Linaviar]

Proposed: War Crimes

---

Legislation Proposed by: Polar Svalbard
Purpose: To define what constitutes a war crime, and the actions to be taken in relevance to them.

Text at time of posting

---

Section 1 Reasons for this amendment.
As clouds of war loom over the region we need to make sure that any war crimes in any war will be addressed.

Section 2 Amendment
Adds the Section War Crimes, under Judicial Branch.
I. The Judicial branch shall also serve as the prosecutors for those accused of war crimes,
II. War Crimes include; Genocide, use of Biological weapons, use of Nuclear Weapons, use of chemical weapons, Inhumane treatment of POWs, Inhumane treatment of noncombatants in occupied territory, and Murder of Surrendering Foes.
III. The Judicial system can dole out sentences such as Imprisonment or Execution to War criminals.
IV. War criminals must be given a chance to discuss their actions.
V. War criminals will be held where it is not possible for them to commit suicide while in custody.

Text Amendment 1

---

Section 1 Reasons for this amendment.
As clouds of war loom over the region we need to make sure that any war crimes in any war will be addressed.

Section 2 Amendment
Adds the Section War Crimes, under Judicial Branch.
I. When ever war crimes are brought up the President shall put together five prosecutors who shall have taken no part within the war and have to pledge to remain unbiased, nations can step forward and the community at a whole will vote whether they are unbiased towards the prosecuted.
II. War Crimes include; Genocide, use of Biological weapons, use of Nuclear Weapons, use of chemical weapons, Inhumane treatment of POWs, Inhumane treatment of noncombatants in occupied territory, and Murder of Surrendering Foes.
a. Chemical weapons that are outlawed are ones that are deadly to a peron or can cause long lasting harm.
III. The Prosecuters can dole out sentences such as Imprisonment or Execution to War criminals.
IV. War criminals must be given a chance to discuss their actions.
V. War criminals will be held where it is not possible for them to commit suicide while in custody.

The proposed legislation is hereby open for debate
Withdrawn by submitter

[Vancouvia]

I object to this amendment in its current form since I and III give the Supreme Court powers to serve as both prosecutor and judge.

I object to II as the use of nuclear weapons is a serious matter, one that hasn't been legislated on as of yet, and is significant enough that it should not be defined nonchalantly in an amendment of which it is not the primary purpose.

I object to V as its language serves to protect the nations that commit war crimes by deflecting the guilt to an individual person.

[Linaviar]

The objections of the Vancouvian representative have been duly noted.

Now, as for my opinion on this bill there are a few significant problems that need addressing. As Vancouvia has pointed out Articles I and III of Section 2 introduce a blatant conflict of interest. By having the justices of this court both prosecute and judge a defendant a conviction is made so likely that it's practically a foregone conclusion.

The second outstanding problem with the legislation is that everything would filed under Section 2 of the constitution. The majority of the legislation, in my opinion, should be filed under the sections concerning the Rights and Restrictions of Nations, with only the note that the judicial branch is responsible for prosecution/judgement going in Section 2.

The third problem with the bill is its stunning ambiguity. For a problem that should ideally be handled with great care, the legislation is surprisingly barren. Where one would expect a substantial list of quantifiers and details there are only a few simple lines that leave far too much up the air to get a good idea of exactly how the situations encompassing war crimes would work. When life and death are literally on the line, this is unacceptable.

Is the idea salvageable? Yes, but the bill itself isn't. In order to gain merely my grudging approval, the proposed legislation would have to undergo such an extensive revision process that the two versions would be virtually unrecognizable, at which point it would count as a separate piece of legislation altogether. Put simply, I object to passage of this amendment, and it is extremely unlikely that this stance will change.

[Dibeg]

This amendment has many issues:
1. The prosecutor/judge business
2. Unclear language
3. Not sure what it means by prosecuting individuals, is that the leader of the involved country?
4. Disagree with the blunt attempt to list different types of war crimes, and not realizing that extended circumstances are possible when use of some of those weapons would be moral.

5. This justice does not wish to further debate until a dramatically changed amendment comes up.

[Polar Svalbard]

How about we set up a new court every time a war crimes trial comes on with nations that have no affiliation to these affairs. We can leave the judges out of it entirely. Unclear language? Explain and it can be fixed dont just spout something and say nothing about it. Prosecuting individuals if youve ever heard of war crimes before it is not nations who commit them it is individuals look it up. have you ever heard of the nuremburg trials. Also when is a nuke moral,sorry your soldiers eyes are melting and the had no fair chance to even possibly live but oh well soldiers are a dime a dozen. When was mustard gas ever a good thing or if someone made the ebola virus into bio weapon how would that be good. Is the beating of Prisoners just a thing that happens. Sorry but soldiers aren't a dime a dozen that you can just go well this makes wars shorter. Anyways there are more war crimes and we can list all down.