(DRAFT) Repeal GA resolution #299 'Legal Competence'

[Liberimery]

Because I have the support of the silent majority

OOC: You have no evidence whatsoever for this.

IC: "You have no evidence whatsoever for this.

We oppose. The target is perfectly cromulent legislation. And the repeals "argument" is incredibly weak. Is there any particular reason why "THIS should not BE a matter of CHOICE for individual state (sic)"?

Incidentally, minimums of what?"

I would like to compliment the Ambassador from Bananaistan for his (her?) skillful linguistics in this argument which embiggens us all in this Assembly. We concur with this argument.

Additionally I draw attention to the fact that the proposed legislation offers no “Romeo and Juliet” exception for two similarly aged teens getting into the action.

Finally I wish to point out the Ambassador insist his morality upon us that this body deals sole with the realm of legality, which is not morality and would recommend that if you seek a body to enforce moral compliance, to kindly find a church.

[Araraukar]

Recognizing that this should NOT be a matter of choice for individual state, due to the incredible sensitive nature of the protection of the vulnerable,

Understanding that minimums should be put in for the protection of the disabled, the elderly, and children,

We hereby repeal Repeal GA resolution #299 'Legal Competence'

OOC: If this is the actual proposal, isn't it Honest Mistake? The target resolution requires that everyone not legally competent, be appointed a guardian. So the disabled, elderly and children would specifically have "protections" already.

Also, this mockery of a proposal makes no sense. "This should not be a matter of choice" - what is "this"? And what minimums? Minimum protections already exist, across several resolutions (including the target) that the author seems to be entirely unaware of.

"Honest Mistake for not addressing the resolution" is what I'd put in the Illegal Proposals thread, if this had just popped up in the submissions.

[Excidium Planetis]

Because I have the support of the silent majority

"It appears the good Ambassador of... Nofear? Whatever... suffers from some grand delusions."

[Red Foxia]

"I believe that the Age of Consent should indeed be at least 15/16, but I do believe that it depends on culture, species, social structures, etc. This also seems to be a way to get your own proposal to work. It should be for when the species matures, as other nations have said. And, there is no "majority". There are only three supporters for this resolution as of now, and I don't think there will be any others who will support this resolution."
-Landen Nevelskoy

[Grays Harbor]

"I believe that the Age of Consent should indeed be at least 15/16, but I do believe that it depends on culture, species, social structures, etc.
which is precisely what the target of this repeal does, and much better than anything Nofear has put forth
This also seems to be a way to get your own proposal to work.
why? As stated above, extant resolutions already do so quite well, and without resorting to a one-size-fits-nobody approach.
It should be for when the species matures, as other nations have said. And, there is no "majority". There are only three supporters for this resolution as of now, and I don't think there will be any others who will support this resolution."
-Landen Nevelskoy

[WayNeacTia]

Lol. No.

I have not received any constructive comments in a long time on these threads, I am therefore submitting both of my repeals. Unless you guys up here to give me constructive criticism this will be going before the GA.

Seems that it turns out to be illegal. Who could have seen that coming?