Kerchistania wrote:Damn this sh*t is gonna pass
No worries there are plenty of people working on repeals at the moment.
Advertisement
by United Republic Empire » Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:56 pm
Kerchistania wrote:Damn this sh*t is gonna pass
by United Republic Empire » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:50 am
by The New California Republic » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:09 am
by Araraukar » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:59 am
United Republic Empire wrote:@Imperium Anglorum - needs updated to [Passed]
Debtor Voting Rights was passed 9,614 votes to 6,991.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Arasi Luvasa » Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:14 am
by Bears Armed » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:19 am
3. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.
by Falcania » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:36 am
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
One repeal actually points out a contradiction that would have made this illegal if it had been noticed in time. Unfortunately, as all passed resolutions have to be considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, pointing out that contradiction as an illegality -- rather than just as, perhaps, a potential cause of legislative confusion -- makes the repeal itself illegal.
As member nations imprisoning people for debt has not yet been banned, this should have been declared illegal -- before it passed -- for contradiction of GAR#4193. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.
Now that it has passed, however, I suppose we have to read the two resolutions together as meaning that nations which disenfranchise the imprisoned can no longer imprison people for debt.
by Castelia » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:42 am
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
One repeal actually points out a contradiction that would have made this illegal if it had been noticed in time. Unfortunately, as all passed resolutions have to be considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, pointing out that contradiction as an illegality -- rather than just as, perhaps, a potential cause of legislative confusion -- makes the repeal itself illegal.
As member nations imprisoning people for debt has not yet been banned, this should have been declared illegal -- before it passed -- for contradiction of GAR#4193. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.
Now that it has passed, however, I suppose we have to read the two resolutions together as meaning that nations which disenfranchise the imprisoned can no longer imprison people for debt.
by The New California Republic » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:49 am
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
One repeal actually points out a contradiction that would have made this illegal if it had been noticed in time. Unfortunately, as all passed resolutions have to be considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, pointing out that contradiction as an illegality -- rather than just as, perhaps, a potential cause of legislative confusion -- makes the repeal itself illegal.
As member nations imprisoning people for debt has not yet been banned, this should have been declared illegal -- before it passed -- for contradiction of GAR#4193. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.
Now that it has passed, however, I suppose we have to read the two resolutions together as meaning that nations which disenfranchise the imprisoned can no longer imprison people for debt.
by Castelia » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:57 am
The New California Republic wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
One repeal actually points out a contradiction that would have made this illegal if it had been noticed in time. Unfortunately, as all passed resolutions have to be considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, pointing out that contradiction as an illegality -- rather than just as, perhaps, a potential cause of legislative confusion -- makes the repeal itself illegal.
As member nations imprisoning people for debt has not yet been banned, this should have been declared illegal -- before it passed -- for contradiction of GAR#4193. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.
Now that it has passed, however, I suppose we have to read the two resolutions together as meaning that nations which disenfranchise the imprisoned can no longer imprison people for debt.
Ah well. Not much can be done about that now I guess.
by The New California Republic » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:59 am
by Falcania » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:05 am
by Castelia » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:09 am
Falcania wrote:Fewer than four hours had passed between the first draft of this, and someone pointing out the incarceration-of-debtors issue that would have rendered this illegal.
The author of the proposal authored a seperate proposal that would have patched this loophole. A member of the General Secretariat even commented on that legislation.
It is absolutely clear that the General Secretariat were aware that this objection had been raised well in advance of the passing of this legislation.
I have always admired the work of Bears Armed but on this occasion, with the high level of scrutiny on this controversial decision, "it unfortunately wasn't noticed in time" simply doesn't pass muster.
To say I am vexed is putting it mildly.
by The New California Republic » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:13 am
Falcania wrote:Fewer than four hours had passed between the first draft of this, and someone pointing out the incarceration-of-debtors issue that would have rendered this illegal.
The author of the proposal authored a seperate proposal that would have patched this loophole. A member of the General Secretariat even commented on that legislation.
It is absolutely clear that the General Secretariat were aware that this objection had been raised well in advance of the passing of this legislation.
I have always admired the work of Bears Armed but on this occasion, with the high level of scrutiny on this controversial decision, "it unfortunately wasn't noticed in time" simply doesn't pass muster.
To say I am vexed is putting it mildly.
by Bears Armed » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:18 am
OOCFalcania wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
One repeal actually points out a contradiction that would have made this illegal if it had been noticed in time. Unfortunately, as all passed resolutions have to be considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, pointing out that contradiction as an illegality -- rather than just as, perhaps, a potential cause of legislative confusion -- makes the repeal itself illegal.
As member nations imprisoning people for debt has not yet been banned, this should have been declared illegal -- before it passed -- for contradiction of GAR#4193. Reserves for member nations the liberty to legislate on the issue of enfranchisement for individuals under incarceration.
Now that it has passed, however, I suppose we have to read the two resolutions together as meaning that nations which disenfranchise the imprisoned can no longer imprison people for debt.
Just to be clear: the original proposal, that was illegal, cannot now be made illegal, but the repeal of that proposal, that points out that the original proposal was illegal, is itself illegal.
Falcania wrote:Fewer than four hours had passed between the first draft of this, and someone pointing out the incarceration-of-debtors issue that would have rendered this illegal.
The author of the proposal authored a seperate proposal that would have patched this loophole. A member of the General Secretariat even commented on that legislation.
It is absolutely clear that the General Secretariat were aware that this objection had been raised well in advance of the passing of this legislation.
I have always admired the work of Bears Armed but on this occasion, with the high level of scrutiny on this controversial decision, "it unfortunately wasn't noticed in time" simply doesn't pass muster.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:31 am
by Bears Armed » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:34 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:42 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:12 am
by The New California Republic » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:21 am
by The Blaatschapen » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:33 am
by Wallenburg » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:25 am
by Falcania » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:27 am
Castelia wrote:Falcania wrote:Fewer than four hours had passed between the first draft of this, and someone pointing out the incarceration-of-debtors issue that would have rendered this illegal.
The author of the proposal authored a seperate proposal that would have patched this loophole. A member of the General Secretariat even commented on that legislation.
It is absolutely clear that the General Secretariat were aware that this objection had been raised well in advance of the passing of this legislation.
I have always admired the work of Bears Armed but on this occasion, with the high level of scrutiny on this controversial decision, "it unfortunately wasn't noticed in time" simply doesn't pass muster.
To say I am vexed is putting it mildly.
Oh, my! Someone's getting his faith in the system shaken!
Welcome to the party, friend!
If this had been true, then I guess I can say that either you guys were blinded by your love for IA, or you purposefully ignored it for the sake of what you could only call *in a deep voice* a conspiracy!
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:52 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement