[Abandoned] On the Structure of Legislative Exemptions

[THX1138]

This is a preliminary draft of an attempt to close the loop on the type of exemptions we will be discussing and voting on soon. In short, the proposal pushes for greater care in the types of legislation we impose on nations, and seeks to alleviate any legal burden the Assembly may place on them by not being clear or fair in exempting certain groups from law.
I've tried to avoid metagaming, so I hope the Secretariat can provide some guidance. I believe this should be done right, and hope for input and collaboration moving forward.

Draft 2: March 3, 2019

On the Structure of Legislative Exemptions

A resolution to preserve the intended principle in Assembly jurisprudence, that all inhabitants of member states be treated equally under the law and its actions.
Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Mild

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of preserving civil rights for all inhabitants of member nations, both to maintain the greatest possible sense of equality among citizens, and to ensure that citizens comprehend their responsibility to equally respect the rights of all around them.

Acknowledging the vast diversity of races, genders, ages, orders of faith, systems of belief, and forms of government, and the difficult symbolic waters that must be navigated to ensure that legislation strikes the best, attainable balance of justice and acknowledgement of rights, throughout the multiverse.

Celebrating the Democratic process, and the ability of all WA citizens, and their representatives, to review, discuss, debate, and decide on all legislation, and their inherent right to be given the full scope of information so that they may make the most informed decision possible.

Hereby:

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:

An ‘exemption’ as any portion of a resolution that indicates that an individual, group, organization, or association is eliminated from the mandates, penalties, suggestions, or equivalent encouragements of that legislation.

Mandates that nations may no longer be subject to WA legislation that include exemptions, expressed directly or as an understood result of language used, unless:
- It is made resoundingly clear that an exemption is being given
- It is made clear who, specifically is being exempted
- It is made clear why this individual or group is being exempted
- All nations are given a clear right to legislate around the exemption, unless otherwise indicated
- The Assembly has knowingly approved the legislation containing this exemption, as an inherent and obvious part

Draft 1

DRAFT – On the Structure of Legislative Exemptions

A resolution to preserve the intended principle in Assembly jurisprudence, that all inhabitants of member states be treated equally under the law and its actions.

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of preserving civil rights for all inhabitants of member nations, both to maintain the greatest possible sense of equality among citizens, and to ensure that citizens comprehend their responsibility to equally respect the rights of all around them.

Acknowledging the vast diversity of races, genders, ages, orders of faith, systems of belief, and forms of government, and the difficult symbolic waters that must be navigated to ensure that legislation strikes the best, attainable balance of justice and acknowledgement of rights, throughout the multiverse.

Celebrating the Democratic process, and the ability of all WA citizens, and their representatives, to review, discuss, debate, and decide on all legislation, and their inherent right to be given the full scope of information so that they may make the most informed decision possible.

Hereby:

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:

A ‘direct exemption’ as any portion of a resolution that indicates directly, that an individual, group, nation, region, or association is eliminated from the mandates, penalties, suggestions, or equivalent encouragements of that legislation.

A ‘de facto exemption’ as any exemption within a resolution, as defined above, that applies similarly, but arises from that legislation’s mention of, but avoidance of directly exempting or legislating to, any of the above indicated individuals or groups. This will include any forestalling, or indication that future legislation may be applied.

Maintains that WA nations may continue to be subject to future legislation that contains direct exemptions, provided:
- It is made resoundingly clear that an exemption is being given
- It is made clear who, specifically is being exempted
- It is made clear why this individual or group is being exempted
- All nations are given a clear right to legislate around the exemption, unless otherwise indicated
- The Assembly has knowingly approved this exemption as an inherent and obvious part of the legislation

Mandates that no WA nation shall be subject to any future legislation that contains a de facto exemption, as defined, that presents laws and penalties that apply to some, while exonerating others within their borders.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Non placet.

[Wallenburg]

Pure blockers such as this are illegal.

[Hatzisland]

First of all, I have serious doubts about the legality of this; Second of all, how would exemptions be granted?; And lastly, I seriously doubt this plan will have my support, as the exemptions clause has way to little detail. If you specify, then a deal could be reached.

[THX1138]

Pure blockers such as this are illegal.

I'm not trying to block. The ability to exempt is maintained. I'm just trying to make the process more transparent, so that every voter understands what, exactly, they are voting for. If anything, it's clearing the block.

[Wallenburg]

Pure blockers such as this are illegal.

I'm not trying to block. The ability to exempt is maintained. I'm just trying to make the process more transparent, so that every voter understands what, exactly, they are voting for. If anything, it's clearing the block.

Mandates that no WA nation shall be subject to any future legislation that contains a de facto exemption, as defined, that presents laws and penalties that apply to some, while exonerating others within their borders.

Pick one, you can't have both.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It also seems profoundly unclear what you mean by a "de facto exemption". So much so that I have no idea what you're trying to legislate on. It could be a variety of different things, and I am wholly unwilling to sacrifice the Assembly's legislative sovereignty to fulfil some strange belief that all things and possibilities must be enumerated when it is semi-obvious that we lack the ability to do so.

[THX1138]

First of all, I have serious doubts about the legality of this; Second of all, how would exemptions be granted?; And lastly, I seriously doubt this plan will have my support, as the exemptions clause has way to little detail. If you specify, then a deal could be reached.

I'm unsure about legality too, but will work to find a way to make it so, if it's not.
OOC: Personally, I don't like the idea of exemptions, but sometimes there are legit reasons. The goal here is to ensure that everyone has a chance to weigh in on the legitimacy of the reasons.
I've indicated in the draft that the exemption would be part of any given legislation, much as occurs now, but would require a bit more detail. If a party wishes to pass a law, and intends to exempt a group, they need to do that in a clear and direct way, and that becomes part of the decision around whether the resolution passes or fails. It's still in the hands of the assembly at large
I'm open to all input. I want this to be something that makes sense to everyone, but upholds the spirit of the Charter.

[Hatzisland]

First of all, I have serious doubts about the legality of this; Second of all, how would exemptions be granted?; And lastly, I seriously doubt this plan will have my support, as the exemptions clause has way to little detail. If you specify, then a deal could be reached.

I'm unsure about legality too, but will work to find a way to make it so, if it's not.
OOC: Personally, I don't like the idea of exemptions, but sometimes there are legit reasons. The goal here is to ensure that everyone has a chance to weigh in on the legitimacy of the reasons.
I've indicated in the draft that the exemption would be part of any given legislation, much as occurs now, but would require a bit more detail. If a party wishes to pass a law, and intends to exempt a group, they need to do that in a clear and direct way, and that becomes part of the decision around whether the resolution passes or fails. It's still in the hands of the assembly at large
I'm open to all input. I want this to be something that makes sense to everyone, but upholds the spirit of the Charter.

Wait, now I'm confused. Is the intention of this plan to grant exemptions to groups(employers, schools, churches, etc.) or grant exemptions to specific nations(like mine or your's?)

[THX1138]

I'm not trying to block. The ability to exempt is maintained. I'm just trying to make the process more transparent, so that every voter understands what, exactly, they are voting for. If anything, it's clearing the block.

Mandates that no WA nation shall be subject to any future legislation that contains a de facto exemption, as defined, that presents laws and penalties that apply to some, while exonerating others within their borders.

Pick one, you can't have both.

This is a complication from GenSec's previous ruling on 457 clause 5. It was determined that that resolution 'remained silent' on the law's application to that group. It didn't outright say they were exempt from the law, it just said that law didn't speak to them, in particular. That's making this draft a lot tougher, because I have to conclude that there are 2 types of exemptions, given that ruling. One, clearly stated, and another, that happens as a result of making no clear statement. Just working with what I've been given.

[Bananaistan]

OOC:

Category/strength?

I ask because I suspect this will fit in none.

Edit: What ruling on GAR#457 clause 5?

[Wallenburg]

Pick one, you can't have both.

This is a complication from GenSec's previous ruling on 457 clause 5. It was determined that that resolution 'remained silent' on the law's application to that group. It didn't outright say they were exempt from the law, it just said that law didn't speak to them, in particular. That's making this draft a lot tougher, because I have to conclude that there are 2 types of exemptions, given that ruling. One, clearly stated, and another, that happens as a result of making no clear statement. Just working with what I've been given.

As far as I can tell, no such ruling exists.

[THX1138]

Wait, now I'm confused. Is the intention of this plan to grant exemptions to groups(employers, schools, churches, etc.) or grant exemptions to specific nations(like mine or your's?)

As defined, it's any of the above. You may submit legislation that says 'here's a new law & this law applies to all nations except NameOfNation' but it has to provide a clear reason why, and then it would be up to the Assembly to say yea or nay. That said, it's not likely that that sort of thing would pass.
However, if you submitted legislation that said 'everyone in the WA is going to get $10 but this law doesn't apply to anyone in prison' and gives a reason for that, that sort of exemption would likely get through.
The aim is to put these decisions about exemptions in the hands of the whole assembly, and if you want to exempt a group for common sense reasons that everyone agrees with, you can.

[Imperium Anglorum]

this law applies to all nations except NameOfNation

That's illegal under optionality.

[THX1138]

As far as I can tell, no such ruling exists.

Possibly, I may have focused too much on GenSec's statement about 457's 'silence' as to the group, and based in what was then, a different version of my repeal. Considering that, I can probably strike the whole part about de facto exemptions entirely from this draft, which makes the proposal a lot more clear.
The thing is, 457 never outright says that the identified group is exempt from the law, although that exemption occurs anyhow. What it says is that 'religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution'. It's not a direct exemption in terms of the language used, but, because this group ends up being exempted anyhow, by the statement that they 'do not fall under this resolution' it becomes a de facto exemption. An exemption that occurs indirectly, through the legilation's silence.

[Bananaistan]

As far as I can tell, no such ruling exists.

Possibly, I may have focused too much on GenSec's statement about 457's 'silence' as to the group, and based in what was then, a different version of my repeal. Considering that, I can probably strike the whole part about de facto exemptions entirely from this draft, which makes the proposal a lot more clear.
The thing is, 457 never outright says that the identified group is exempt from the law, although that exemption occurs anyhow. What it says is that 'religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution'. It's not a direct exemption in terms of the language used, but, because this group ends up being exempted anyhow, by the statement that they 'do not fall under this resolution' it becomes a de facto exemption. An exemption that occurs indirectly, through the legilation's silence.

What statement?

Also:

OOC:

Category/strength?

I ask because I suspect this will fit in none.
...

[THX1138]

What statement?

In the thread for the repeal of 457, SL stated the following:

OOC: I see this clause as an Honest Mistake. The target does not block further WA action to deal with discrimination by religious organizations; in fact it invites it. "This resolution is silent as to X" is explicitly a notice that future legislation regarding "X" shall neither duplicate nor contradict the resolution in question...

To which I replied (same thread):

I see your perspective on it, but remain uneasy with the result. The 'silence as to X' still results in an exemption from this proposal's mandates, for one identified group: "...religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution." Granted, that can be addressed in future, but in the interim, there remains an imbalance.While I see your point that clause 5 doesn't necessarily entrench a right for that group, that silence in this proposal relating to that group also fails to hold them to the same standard of law as all other groups...

So, that's the context.

[THX1138]

OOC: Category/strength?
I ask because I suspect this will fit in none.

I'd be inclined to think this is in the realm of civil rights, given that its eventual goal is to bolster civil equality under the law and its actions, and make the process of exempting groups from law, more transparent. As for strength, I'd say that's moderately important. I'll amend the draft with that information.

[Hatzisland]

Wait, now I'm confused. Is the intention of this plan to grant exemptions to groups(employers, schools, churches, etc.) or grant exemptions to specific nations(like mine or your's?)

As defined, it's any of the above. You may submit legislation that says 'here's a new law & this law applies to all nations except NameOfNation' but it has to provide a clear reason why, and then it would be up to the Assembly to say yea or nay. That said, it's not likely that that sort of thing would pass.
However, if you submitted legislation that said 'everyone in the WA is going to get $10 but this law doesn't apply to anyone in prison' and gives a reason for that, that sort of exemption would likely get through.
The aim is to put these decisions about exemptions in the hands of the whole assembly, and if you want to exempt a group for common sense reasons that everyone agrees with, you can.

If that is the case, then I highly doubt I will support it. Nations will say things like "I will not support this unless I am excluded." Authors will always exclude themselves from plans involving business regulation because it will give them a leg up in the global economy. Overall, I cannot support a plan that allows people to directly exempt themselves from WA laws. You have to remember that, if you are a member of the WA, you have to comply with its laws. This plan creates a loophole. Because of this, even if this plan is upheld as legal(which we doubt), we will still have to oppose, as long as the nation exemption clause stays. We hope you see our concerns with this, and hope we move forward to create a better plan.

[Falcania]

So let me get this straight - this is legislation designed to fix a problem in #457 that doesn't actually exist.

[THX1138]

So let me get this straight - this is legislation designed to fix a problem in #457 that doesn't actually exist.

Absolutely not. The problems of 457 are clearly stated in that repeal. The comments above were in response to an earlier, and much different draft.

[THX1138]

If that is the case, then I highly doubt I will support it. Nations will say things like "I will not support this unless I am excluded." Authors will always exclude themselves from plans involving business regulation because it will give them a leg up in the global economy. Overall, I cannot support a plan that allows people to directly exempt themselves from WA laws. You have to remember that, if you are a member of the WA, you have to comply with its laws. This plan creates a loophole. Because of this, even if this plan is upheld as legal(which we doubt), we will still have to oppose, as long as the nation exemption clause stays. We hope you see our concerns with this, and hope we move forward to create a better plan.

OOC: I've already redrafted, and honestly I agree with you completely. It's now much more cut and dried, which was what I wanted to do in the first place, but kind of got encouraged away from.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: 0% chance that this is legal under the Category rule. For any category.

[THX1138]

OOC: 0% chance that this is legal under the Category rule. For any category.

OOC: Copy, I'll keep working on it, and find a way to bring it into compliance.

[Hatzisland]

If that is the case, then I highly doubt I will support it. Nations will say things like "I will not support this unless I am excluded." Authors will always exclude themselves from plans involving business regulation because it will give them a leg up in the global economy. Overall, I cannot support a plan that allows people to directly exempt themselves from WA laws. You have to remember that, if you are a member of the WA, you have to comply with its laws. This plan creates a loophole. Because of this, even if this plan is upheld as legal(which we doubt), we will still have to oppose, as long as the nation exemption clause stays. We hope you see our concerns with this, and hope we move forward to create a better plan.

OOC: I've already redrafted, and honestly I agree with you completely. It's now much more cut and dried, which was what I wanted to do in the first place, but kind of got encouraged away from.

I have looked over the new draft, but I think it is illegal because there is no amendment process to quote "go around an exemption." That will have to be specified.