is Compulsory Military Service Ban illegal?

[The dark Panther]

i read the rules and can't tell is Compulsory Military Service Ban illegal? wouldn't it interfere with national sovereignty

Edit: it's illegal because of 132 i think

[Sierra Lyricalia]

i read the rules and can't tell is Compulsory Military Service Ban illegal? wouldn't it interfere with national sovereignty

OOC: Welcome to the World Assembly! The dirty open secret is that literally every resolution interferes with national sovereignty. The question voters must ask is, is that interference justified by its effects on either the world economy or the rights and/or livelihood of sapient beings? I didn't see anything wrong with the proposal in question, at least as far as the proposal rules go. Whether or not it's a good idea is a separate question, one for the voters to decide.

[Bears Armed]

It looks legal to me.
There's an earlier resolution about conscientious objection, but that specifically leaves open the possibility of further legislation to ban [or even to require!] compulsory military service.

[The dark Panther]

i read the rules and can't tell is Compulsory Military Service Ban illegal? wouldn't it interfere with national sovereignty

OOC: Welcome to the World Assembly! The dirty open secret is that literally every resolution interferes with national sovereignty. The question voters must ask is, is that interference justified by its effects on either the world economy or the rights and/or livelihood of sapient beings? I didn't see anything wrong with the proposal in question, at least as far as the proposal rules go. Whether or not it's a good idea is a separate question, one for the voters to decide.

OOC: it's illegal because of Resolution #132 Military Freedom Act "5) This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service."

[Araraukar]

OOC: it's illegal because of Resolution #132 Military Freedom Act "5) This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service."

OOC: No, that refers to only that resolution, saying that it doesn't say yea or nay on compulsory military service.

[Slavonia and Srijem]

It's totally legal.

[The dark Panther]

It's totally legal.

it's illegal now

[Araraukar]

It's totally legal.

it's illegal now

OOC: How?

[The dark Panther]

it's illegal now

OOC: How?

check proposes in illegal it in there

[Araraukar]

OOC: How?

check proposes in illegal it in there

OOC: And same in understandable English, please?

[The dark Panther]

OCC: go in illegal and look at the first one

[Araraukar]

OCC: go in illegal and look at the first one

OOC: Go where exactly?

[The dark Panther]

in the world assembly...

[Araraukar]

in the world assembly...

OOC: Link, please?

[The dark Panther]

in the world assembly...

OOC: Link, please?

if you're not trolling

[Araraukar]

if you're not trolling

OOC: How exactly is asking you to provide a link to something "trolling"? Also, was this thread supposed to be a challenge thread? Because those need to be marked as such. If it was meant as general question, that's what the Q&A thread is for.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Link to proposal: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1514589751

That particular interpretation of Article III, Clause 2a would require us to totally ignore Art. III, Clause 5. I think this proposal is illegal for a category violation (protecting the rights of citizens not to be put in an alleged moral cesspool is not the same thing as slashing military budgets), but there is no contradiction there. I must disagree with my colleagues to the extent that they believe there's a contradiction.

[Bears Armed]

Link to proposal: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1514589751

That particular interpretation of Article III, Clause 2a would require us to totally ignore Art. III, Clause 5.

I changed my ruling to 'illegal', on that basis, having been informed by CD that that was specifically why they had called it illegal. Admittedly I didn't have much time available that evening to consider the matter in detail. Thinking further now, on the matter of that clause's interaction with III/5... Yes, I might have been wrong that second time.

I think this proposal is illegal for a category violation (protecting the rights of citizens not to be put in an alleged moral cesspool is not the same thing as slashing military budgets),

I think that this is one of the relatively rare cases where I'd consider either of two categories acceptable.

[Araraukar]

OOC: As the proposal has now lapsed and it wasn't posted here, I'll take SL's word on it (mostly because I'm not sure what Bears is trying to say ).

[Bears Armed]

OOC: As the proposal has now lapsed and it wasn't posted here, I'll take SL's word on it (mostly because I'm not sure what Bears is trying to say ).

OOC: "I dun goofed".
(i.e. on third thoughts, if the proposal hadn't already lapsed, I'd probably go back to calling it legal.)