[C] Agricultural Invasive Species

[Separatist Peoples]

viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=9&t=444229&p=34126761#p34126761

We should issue a ruling, if only to prove that we listen to the unwashed masses.

Motion to hear this challenge (and vote aye to hearing it if seconded).

[Bananaistan]

Seconded. I think there’s a benefit to authors if we either update or reinforce precedent on NEF.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't like the technical requirement that a resolution mention the extreme hazard, but its the best way we have of enforcing NEF without getting into questions of fact. What do you guys think about Wally's preamble and how satisfactory it is re NEF?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I don't like the technical requirement that a resolution mention the extreme hazard, but its the best way we have of enforcing NEF without getting into questions of fact. What do you guys think about Wally's preamble and how satisfactory it is re NEF?

As stated publicly, I don't even think the challenged resolution rises to the level of general restriction of commerce necessary to trigger the "extreme hazard" test.

If it did, there's enough reasonable doubt about the agricultural industry's prospects that a reasonable person can judge it should be left to voters.

If it shouldn't have, then Wally's clauses about the fundamentality of agriculture and the hazards it faces are enough to justify the regulations w/r/t GAR #68.

TL;dr there's no there there. I don't see a need to take more than a day to make the above three statements polite and complete sentences and putting this the fuck to bed.

[Bananaistan]

I think that the totality of Wally's preamble and the first clause defining invasive species is probably just about the minimum necessary to scrape by the required handwave to extreme hazards to national populations. The first clause pushes it over the line. It's clearly not as trivial as "pointy desk corners". I think this would make a good test or standard in future. We assess only whether the hazard mentioned is trivial or substantial. After that, it's up to the voters to decide. In this case, IMO the hazard posed by invasive species as outlined in the three clauses is substantial enough to comply with NEF and I vote that the resolution is legal.

Obviously then I'm in favour of retaining existing precedent on the matter. I do not believe we have the option of completely ignoring NEF but neither would I like to see it tightened up.To tighten it up would, I think, result in a lot more illegal proposals. This would not be in the interests of the community.

[Separatist Peoples]

Agreed on all points. I think, if we get another vote for legal in here, we can write up something short that addresses both the degree of restriction and the degree of hazard.

[Bears Armed]

Agreed on all points.

[Separatist Peoples]

That's a majority. I can try to write something tonight. Tomorrow morning at the latest. I've a writing assignment I have to knock out first.

[Separatist Peoples]

Draft opinion:

The challenge argues that AIS does not show an extreme hazard to national populations, and thus is an unlawful restriction on general commerce in contradiction of NEF. NEF allows general restrictions on commerce only where an enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations. GenSec is unwilling to make factual policy findings as to what objectively constitutes an extreme hazard. We are willing to extend some common-sense restrictions: we would strike down a proposal that banned pointy desk corners as an extreme hazard to populations. At this point, we are unwilling to interject a counter-majoritarian decision on policy when we can let voters decide.

Here, AIS does not argue explicitly that the enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations, but the preamble notes the importance of agriculture and goes onto define invasive species as those that “significantly imperil the health . . . of those agricultural ecosystems.” This toes the textual minimum that NEF requires, but nonetheless signals the extreme hazard of invasive species. One could argue that the restriction on invasive species does not generally restrict the sale of goods, or even those invasive species, merely imposes regulations on how members handle those goods at their entry points. Having no reason to discard the proposal, we leave the policy decision to the democratic process.

The challenge also argues that AIS contradicts WATR by creating a discriminatory importation scheme. WATR 1.b states, in summary, that nations have the right for a universal regulatory or tax treatment of goods regardless of national origin.

Here, AIS applies a universal regulatory scheme on all goods. That some nations might have greater difficulty under this scheme is irrelevant. One could as easily argue that nations that use child labor would have some greater difficulty obeying child labor restrictions than those without. That is not discriminatory, but the purpose of regulation, and we are not convinced. WATR 2.d allows reasonable and appropriate trade resolutions consistent with the resolution’s goals. AIS is within this ambit.

AIS is legal.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Nearly perfect. I would ad parts in green for clarity. The struck portion reflects that AIS 2(c) could be construed to require transportation precautions even after goods have entered a member state.

The challenge argues that AIS does not show an extreme hazard to national populations, and thus is an unlawful restriction on general commerce in contradiction of NEF. NEF allows general restrictions on commerce only where an enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations. GenSec is unwilling to make factual policy findings as to what objectively constitutes an extreme hazard. We are willing to extend some common-sense restrictions: we would strike down a proposal that banned pointy desk corners as an extreme hazard to populations. At this point, we are unwilling to interject a counter-majoritarian decision on policy when we can let voters decide.

Here, AIS does not argue explicitly that the enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations, but the preamble notes the importance of agriculture and goes onto define invasive species as those that “significantly imperil the health . . . of those agricultural ecosystems.” This toes the textual minimum that NEF requires, but nonetheless signals the extreme hazard of invasive species. One could argue, as some have, that the restriction on invasive species does not generally restrict the sale of goods, or even of those invasive species, but merely imposes regulations on how members handle those goods at their entry points. Having no reason to discard the proposal, we leave the policy decision to the democratic process.

The challenge also argues that AIS contradicts WATR by creating a discriminatory importation scheme. WATR 1.b states, in summary, that nations have the right for a universal regulatory or tax treatment of goods regardless of national origin.

Here, AIS applies a universal regulatory scheme on all goods. That some nations might have greater difficulty under this scheme is irrelevant. One could as easily argue that nations that use child labor would have some greater difficulty obeying child labor restrictions than those without. That is not discriminatory, but the purpose of regulation, and we are not convinced. WATR 2.d allows reasonable and appropriate trade resolutions consistent with the resolution’s goals. AIS is within this ambit.

AIS is legal.

[Bananaistan]

Looks good. I sign on.

One quibble:

This toes the textual minimum that NEF requires ...

This appears to be a typo unless it's a legal term something like your destructive cannons. In which case, I have no idea what it means!

[Separatist Peoples]

Looks good. I sign on.

One quibble:

This toes the textual minimum that NEF requires ...

This appears to be a typo unless it's a legal term something like your destructive cannons. In which case, I have no idea what it means!

No, actually it's an idiom. Toe the line. Come right up to the limit without crossing it.

[Bears Armed]

I sign on.

[Christian Democrats]

Put a note at the bottom of the opinion for me.

Christian Democrats concurs in the judgment with respect to NEF, and he joins the opinion with respect to WATR.

[Sciongrad]

I'll sign on to SP's opinion as written.