As this proposal has now surprisingly been marked "Legal" by its first reviewer, and there is no discussion thread to raise the question of legality, I am filing this legality challenge.
Proposal in question
Repeal: “Nuclear Arms Possession Act”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal Resolution: GA#10 Proposed by: Byni
General Assembly Resolution #10 “Nuclear Arms Possession Act” (Category: International Security; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
About 80 years ago humanity got a weapon that could destroy ourselves.
This weapon was the Atom Bomb. 146,000 people died from the dropping of only two of weaker versions of this bomb. Now we have stronger bombs that could kill even more people.
So why should the world allow these weapons to be used!
Why: This weapon is to powerful to be allowed in this world to many people die from its power.
Why should we allow this weapon in the world if it can kill so many.
So please vote wisely and repeal this act.
Original Thread
I am not aware of any drafting thread associated with this submission.
Basis of Challenge
A) This proposal runs afoul of the GA Rule against Real World References. It does this in the following manner:
- The first line of the proposal text is a reference to the development of the atomic bomb approximately 80 years ago - culminating in the successful Trinity test in July of 1945
- The second line of the proposal text is a reference to the bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in August of 1945
B) Additionally, this proposal may run afoul of the requirement to use Understandable English:
- There is questionable grammar and incorrect homophone usage throughout the proposal. Specific examples include:
1) Substitution of an exclamation point for a question mark in line 3
2) Multiple uses of "to" in place of "too" in line 4
3) Substitution of a period for a question mark in line 5
4) Line 6 is not a sentence
5) There are issues with voice and agreement in line 1.
C) Finally, it may contradict the prohibition against Branding:
- Based on context and prohibited real world reference, the instances of the pronoun "we" in line 2 and line 5 are both clearly as personal pronouns to refer to humans outside of the NationStates game.
Precedent
The present list of submitted GA proposals includes two proposals ruled illegal on the basis of Real World References:
Specifically, "Provision Of Universal Healthcare" has been ruled illegal on this basis by all three reviewing members of the Secretariat.
Similarly, "Protecting The Rights Of Indigenous People" has been ruled illegal for the same reason, by the same reviewers.