The nations Constitution and World Assembly

[Texkentuck]

Union of Capitalist Conservative Republic
A statement release to the World Assembly to advance Civil Rights



Texkentuck Parliament today have been in discussion about the rule of law of the World Assembly. We view the world assembly as more of a world congress for domestic issues of many nations who share diffirent government styles and economic institutions which in return hinders a nation no matter how good or bad the rule of law is written at times. Is it possible for the WA to make a constitution that will protect nations at the mercy of the popular vote from domestic law which we see as not good for a nation as a whole?....

For instance we believe that any law passed if goes against the essence of a nations constitution has the write to opt out when it's in regards to citizens and their lives being taken away....We believe the WA has a premature approach to laws regarding abortion so much so they state that doctors are forced to do a practice which they didn't become doctors to do on a vast scale for people who simply just don't want to bear childeren. This ignores a nations civil right in the right to be born under constitutional protection. Our constitution guarantee a citizens birth right....It's as simple as written. We are making a case for in this area that the constitution of nations of the such should be protected and majority of future lives of nations which make our society flourish....The UCCR states such laws that remain in place under Texkentucks' Civil Rights law uphold birth right and the WA proposals are grossly in violation. Our nation sees the WA in a civil rights violation which is the destruction of the innocents with no protection... We hope in the future the WA will make a just proposal which will defend the life of the unborn child as well as allowing for a mother to make a just decision when faced with her own life in jeopardy. The WA has no protections for unborn life....That's an atrocity and furthermore a proposal in place which force a doctor to not be able to opt out of performing a procedure. We made our case and we understand many nation may stand in opposition but the UCCR has made it's concern and we hope future proposals will honestly understand our nations stance and others like it that we have civil rights protections and any persons born or unborn civil right by law isn't taken lightly but current proposals in place do take the matter lightly....

On a positive note we would like to congratulate the WA on many good proposals and admire the passion of nations who care for a just world that can come together and be civil in making great proposal for nations as a whole.....The UCCR does see the WA in a civil rights violation until specific laws are removed and made to be more universally acceptable and don't strike at the birth right of a nations constitution on this subject of anyone just having an abortion just to have one.... International law is supposed to defend nations from atrocity and not put nations at the mercy who have sound laws protecting the rights of the mother and child....Also in the odd case of doctors being forced to do a practice that most doctors don't go to medical school to learn to do....

Pres. Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
Union of Conservative Capitalist Republic
Texkentuck Monarchy Federation

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: any attempt to implement this concept would be illegal. Which you would know if you ever read the rules.

[Wallenburg]

By the terms of GA #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", your constitution means jack squat when it contradicts WA law.

[Nepleslia]

By the terms of GA #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", your constitution means jack squat when it contradicts WA law.

Even if the constitution (hypothetically; not going to dig through Tex’s... writing) explicitly states that it supersedes any other document/legislation/institution/et cetera such as the World Assembly?

[Separatist Peoples]

By the terms of GA #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", your constitution means jack squat when it contradicts WA law.

Even if the constitution (hypothetically; not going to dig through Tex’s... writing) explicitly states that it supersedes any other document/legislation/institution/et cetera such as the World Assembly?

Yes.

[Wallenburg]

By the terms of GA #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", your constitution means jack squat when it contradicts WA law.

Even if the constitution (hypothetically; not going to dig through Tex’s... writing) explicitly states that it supersedes any other document/legislation/institution/et cetera such as the World Assembly?

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

[Nepleslia]

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Noted, and thanks.

[Texkentuck]

Ooc: any attempt to implement this concept would be illegal. Which you would know if you ever read the rules.

Nothing illegal in removing proposals and making proposals that are better based on constitutions. With this logic the same could be said vice-versa....

[Texkentuck]

By the terms of GA #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", your constitution means jack squat when it contradicts WA law.

No kidding....That's obvious....Better proposals can be made to be in accord with nations and there constitution. Constitutions shouldn't mean jack squat completely but because of the motive by nations such as yours that's true... The proposals in place are very extreme and are in a civil-rights violation.

[Texkentuck]

By the terms of GA #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", your constitution means jack squat when it contradicts WA law.

Even if the constitution (hypothetically; not going to dig through Tex’s... writing) explicitly states that it supersedes any other document/legislation/institution/et cetera such as the World Assembly?

We agree with your point and it's not possible to use my argument for any law but birth right is not just any law....

[Texkentuck]

Noted, and thanks.

Going off of what you just said the proposals in place are illegal...

[Texkentuck]

We are simply stating that the proposals that are in place in regards are as illegal as if this WA passed a proposal to allow slavery....It just can't be put in place.....Abortion in general is a grotesque practice and if it's performed to save a life that's understandable. Wide spread of someone civil-right which is a birth right taken away so easily with out provisions is an extreme position against that child boy or girls civil-liberty. If it's completely abolished for a women whose life is in jeopardy that action would also be an attack on civil-liberty. By protecting the unborns civil liberty on a vast scale while allowing a women to have the option when life is at risk would be a just reason for a civil-liberty to be ignored. An operation on a vast scale is an attack on ones civil-liberty with out prejudice.... We should have a proposal in place the defends each persons civil-liberty. Proposals in place should not give control to just one party to just so easily ignore the civil-liberty for a person to be born. It's a genocide allowed by this world assembly and the issue is taken so easily to just look at the liberty of the person who is smart enough to have a voice and not connected by an ambilocal chord... If a twin is unable to function normal in a cognitive way and lives off the other twin but can walk and smile. Would the twin have the right to destroy that half of their body with a separate brain and soul?....We say not........ It's the worse case made that a child with perfect forming of cognitive ablitliy can just be destroyed on a vast scale with no protection what so ever. That's a human rights atrocity....

It's so extreme the proposal in place force doctors to do an operation which most did not go to medical school to perform. Most go to medical school to save lives and not do procedures for the majority who afford that luxury.

Our nation reconizes Toilet Paper as a luxury...Go Figure....

Laws in place are supposed to uphold law that's better for the world and not erasing good law that protects ones civil-liberty of a birth right....But when ones birth right puts a mothers life in jeopardy then it's about saving one life over the other. The decision should be left up to the mother but if this was a law about religion it would force a mother to give up her life which would be of a high sacrifice which the government should not have control over. We need a proposal that doesn't takes the rights of one on a vast scale while ignoring ones birth right....Our Constitution Texkentuck insures birth right but if we were on this WA our law would favor the civil-right of one party while totally treading on the other by taking away their right to be born. Abortion takes away a vote. Abortion takes away new person who is able to contribute to society. Abortion stops a growing life which is as bad as taking away life itself. Because it puts a stop to life in general.


If the WA protects birth right and protects the choice of a mother when her life is in jeopardy this WA would not have appeased the ultra religious but it did tread on the rights of all lightly and many un-called for abortions would be stopped... Please take birth right into consideration of nations who don't allow the sheer practice of mass scale abortion...Thank you and we have good faith that the WA may take this into consideration....We have faith in the WA that they can look passed bias and simply look at this from a civil-rights perspective.....Birth right must be defended- The mothers life must be protected as well........But when ones life isn't going to cause the other to die then abortion should not be allowed. Health care professionals should only do the procedure if a life is to be saved... I can't explain this more simply. We want a great human rights proposal that looks after all parties and doesn't force doctors to do something they aren't comfortable to do on a vast scale that isn't about saving life most times...

Our nation and UCCR congratulates the World Assembly on the many good proposals in place and hope that our nation has made a case that is well understood. We have faith that many nations in the WA are for advancing forward in a just world. Our nation will join the WA when the time is right and currently we are advancing the growth of our UCCR.....Thank you and may the nations of the World Assembly prosper....


We uphold the rule of law and our Constitution.

President Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
Union of Capitalist Conservative Republic
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=tex ... id=1496346

[Lamoni]

Even if the constitution (hypothetically; not going to dig through Tex’s... writing) explicitly states that it supersedes any other document/legislation/institution/et cetera such as the World Assembly?

We agree with your point and it's not possible to use my argument for any law but birth right is not just any law....

You know that you can put all of those quotes into one post, rather than three, yes? Moderation would ask that you do so in the future, so that we don't have to warn you for spam.

- Lamoni
NS Game Moderator

[WayNeacTia]

Perhaps if you could write things in a proposal of some kind, instead of spamming the forums with incoherent essays, things may start happening for you.

[Swaraelia]

By the terms of GA #2, "Rights and Duties of WA States", your constitution means jack squat when it contradicts WA law.

No kidding....That's obvious....Better proposals can be made to be in accord with nations and there constitution. Constitutions shouldn't mean jack squat completely but because of the motive by nations such as yours that's true... The proposals in place are very extreme and are in a civil-rights violation.

because your nation will be affected by any resolutions that pass. (Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest.) In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

You cannot pick and choose what kind of laws you follow. By being a WA member (and thereby, OOC, choosing to participate in the World Assembly aspect of this game), you must implicitly obey any and all resolutions it passes.

You could, however, try to pass your own resolutions on their own merit or repeal existing ones on their lack thereof. If you could write something that would convince 6% of WA regional delegates, pass the Secretariat and receive over 50% of WA nations' votes then you could easily ban abortion or create the "great human rights proposal" of your dreams.

[Texkentuck]

Thank you all on your feed back....Criticize the way I try to get out my message but if you all were in agreement I doubt I would be getting the response about spam. Spam is totally stating what I wrote is incoherent. What part of it is incoherent?...We laid out our message and it stands....In being in the WA just totally ignoring that I simply state


The proposals are ultra-pro-choice and and it's about life or death....Our constitution guarantees life to the unborn and it guarantees a women a right to to have an abortion when her own life is in jeopardy because it makes no since for both mother and child to be at risk. The proposals in place straight out ignores the human rights of a child to be born. It doesn't get more clear.... I state that the WA proposals are in straight out human rights violation. Either the WA can keep the Neanderthal proposals in place and only favor the women's rights completely over the right of a child to be born or it look at the rights of both and be more in defense of an innocent child who is developing to come into the world. I'm pointing out a human rights violation that is allowed and it's called incoherent...I'll break it down.


Human RIghts Violations that are in place of the WA.
1. Doctors are forced to perform abortions on a vast scale which may go against their belief.
2. A child right to be born are completely not defended at all and favors only one party so much the doctors "A live cautious person" beliefs are ignored.


Women who choose to have a baby is their any incentive for single-mothers?- doubt it.

It's not all about religion. If religion didn't exist I think forcing doctors to perform an abortion and allowing wide spread abortion of a growing live individual would be a trample on human rights....

If my arguement was soley relgion based it would force women at risk to not have an abortion and parish. Which my proposal would not do that. Actually no relgion in the world would want to force a women whose life is at risk to be forced in not having an abortion because that would be the state taking away the moral right of an individual to live up to a high moral cause to lay down their life for their child. Also those cases are in the gray area because maybe a women was thinking about her life and the effect it would have on her family to not have a mother present for the current childeren.

We are simply stating that life should be defended better and the civil rights of the unborn with the very right to be born should take root... Go read a poem called Desiderata everyone has a right to be here and are a child of the universe...

The proposals in place are written very well but it's in total human-rights violations and very pro-abort....

There are small number of WA Nations who may appreaciate reading what I wrote or not. But for nations in the WA who believe what we are trying to make just we stand with your nation...


ooc-

You cannot pick and choose what kind of laws you follow. By being a WA member (and thereby, OOC, choosing to participate in the World Assembly aspect of this game), you must implicitly obey any and all resolutions it passes.

No kidding....But nations do have the right to call out a human rights violation when there is one....Also it's not a regular proposal. Abortions a hot topic like slavery but to the majority in this WA it's not.....At one time Slavery was also a hot topic so when President Jefferson braught it up to the congress it was shut down very much like this topic so politicians for years layed off the issue sadly...

In roll play the UCCR will be the front line nations for defending life of the unborn and promoting the rights of the mother when her life is in concrete jeopardy. Also when we join the WA we will put forth a proposal for all single mothers and fathers of the world.....But hopefully when we join such proposals may have been put in place....




Pres. Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck
UCCR

[Wallenburg]

Pretty much every post on your account is incoherent. Your writing style does not facilitate reading comprehension, coming across more as a stream of consciousness than anything else. I reckon anyone from pro-choice IA to UFoC to anti-abortion Auralia would consider this a poor communication of anti-abortion ideas.

Any assertions or appearances of assertions of a shared identity between Wayne and the former player UFoC are entirely coincidental, and represent neither my opinions nor statements of fact.

[Texkentuck]

Perhaps if you could write things in a proposal of some kind, instead of spamming the forums with incoherent essays, things may start happening for you.

Just laying out a proposal didn't work before so there has to be some build up. I don't think any change will happen at this time. This is our last plee with The WA. Next time our nation is back it will be with the UCCR if it takes root.....


When we write our proposal it will be written way less than the reasoning for the proposal we put forth.....

A proposal we lay out would
A: Defend the unborn because of birth right.
B: Make it in which doctors do have a choice to participate in such an opperation.
C: The proposal can be opt out of if pregnancy is not viable and the womens life is in danger.
D:An incentive for single parents.....

That's the proposal....No fancy words and very clear....

Also if nations want a proposal to attack religion then put a proposal to outlaw religion. Hopefully nations are more free-thought and open minded to not do that....

We thank the WA for reading our reasoning and hope they take a good hard look at our statement and the minority of nations who are pro-life in this WA....Some nations that are more pro-life may not like the opt out wording...It would have been nice for unity and civil-rights if proposals in place had something not so hard lined pro-abort in the fast lane ignoring the right of the doctor. Ignoring the birth right and supposedly it's all about the mother but nothing for single parents anywhere in the WA......We aren't criticizing the WA....Our nation is clearly having an intervention on such civil-rights issues and this is unlike other proposals....

[Wallenburg]

When we write our proposal it will be written way less than the reasoning for the proposal we put forth.....

A proposal we lay out would
A: Defend the unborn because of birth right.
B: Make it in which doctors do have a choice to participate in such an opperation.
C: The proposal can be opt out of if pregnancy is not viable and the womens life is in danger.
D:An incentive for single parents.....

That's the proposal....No fancy words and very clear....

It could be made clearer, but clarity won't really help illegal and terrible policy.

Also if nations want a proposal to attack religion then put a proposal to outlaw religion. Hopefully nations are more free-thought and open minded to not do that....

Playing the victim won't make you one. Nobody is even entertaining an attempt to outlaw religion, not least because it would require multiple repeals before it could even be legal.

[Texkentuck]

Our nation would like to thank the WA for allowing are thought be heard. Our nation did it's part in explaining our reasoning. We hope all WA nations have a good day....

We feel that we drew our point clear and as precise as possible.....

We currently want to thank all nations for their feed back and even the nations who disagree with our nation strongly.

00C-
On another topic this is a great poem.. This has nothing to do with the roll play above but I did mention it in roll play. In real life it's a great poem..........

https://www.desiderata.com/desiderata.html

[Tsaivao]

Our nation would like to thank the WA for allowing are thought be heard. Our nation did it's part in explaining our reasoning. We hope all WA nations have a good day....

We feel that we drew our point clear and as precise as possible.....

OOC: Even if this weren't a rambling blog strewn across multiple posts, the point still stands that your proposal would be illegal.

There are currently pro-choice measures that allow abortions in the WA. You have to repeal them to make pro-life legislation, or else there would be contradictions, which is illegal.

You cannot pick and choose which laws to follow and which you cannot. What if I went to your nation and simply chose not to follow your anti-abortion laws? You'd obviously be upset, cuz I just broke the law. That's exactly how the WA works too, it's all or nothing.

Finally, when someone says your proposal is illegal, it's nothing to do with your beliefs. Stop acting like the victim here, if you took the time to read the proposal rules you would understand all of this. If there were no other laws, you could draft pro-life laws to your heart's content, but you cannot since there are already laws with provisions that prevent that (Not because they explicitly say "pro-life banned" but because they unconditionally give women access to an abortion at any time, which effectively invalidates any attempt to restrict it)

Seriously mate, 90% of your problems in this Assembly could be solved if you just listened to people and read the rules. You're so focused on just trying to outlaw abortion that you don't check the rules, and it's getting kinda old, mate.

[Outer Sparta]

Our nation would like to thank the WA for allowing are thought be heard. Our nation did it's part in explaining our reasoning. We hope all WA nations have a good day....

We feel that we drew our point clear and as precise as possible.....

OOC: Even if this weren't a rambling blog strewn across multiple posts, the point still stands that your proposal would be illegal.

There are currently pro-choice measures that allow abortions in the WA. You have to repeal them to make pro-life legislation, or else there would be contradictions, which is illegal.

You cannot pick and choose which laws to follow and which you cannot. What if I went to your nation and simply chose not to follow your anti-abortion laws? You'd obviously be upset, cuz I just broke the law. That's exactly how the WA works too, it's all or nothing.

Finally, when someone says your proposal is illegal, it's nothing to do with your beliefs. Stop acting like the victim here, if you took the time to read the proposal rules you would understand all of this. If there were no other laws, you could draft pro-life laws to your heart's content, but you cannot since there are already laws with provisions that prevent that (Not because they explicitly say "pro-life banned" but because they unconditionally give women access to an abortion at any time, which effectively invalidates any attempt to restrict it)

Seriously mate, 90% of your problems in this Assembly could be solved if you just listened to people and read the rules. You're so focused on just trying to outlaw abortion that you don't check the rules, and it's getting kinda old, mate.

They're not even in the WA, so they can feel free to make any legislation they want in their own nation and not be bound by WA ones.

[Texkentuck]

OOC: Even if this weren't a rambling blog strewn across multiple posts, the point still stands that your proposal would be illegal.

There are currently pro-choice measures that allow abortions in the WA. You have to repeal them to make pro-life legislation, or else there would be contradictions, which is illegal.

You cannot pick and choose which laws to follow and which you cannot. What if I went to your nation and simply chose not to follow your anti-abortion laws? You'd obviously be upset, cuz I just broke the law. That's exactly how the WA works too, it's all or nothing.

Finally, when someone says your proposal is illegal, it's nothing to do with your beliefs. Stop acting like the victim here, if you took the time to read the proposal rules you would understand all of this. If there were no other laws, you could draft pro-life laws to your heart's content, but you cannot since there are already laws with provisions that prevent that (Not because they explicitly say "pro-life banned" but because they unconditionally give women access to an abortion at any time, which effectively invalidates any attempt to restrict it)

Seriously mate, 90% of your problems in this Assembly could be solved if you just listened to people and read the rules. You're so focused on just trying to outlaw abortion that you don't check the rules, and it's getting kinda old, mate.

They're not even in the WA, so they can feel free to make any legislation they want in their own nation and not be bound by WA ones.

[Outer Sparta]

They're not even in the WA, so they can feel free to make any legislation they want in their own nation and not be bound by WA ones.

Your rants don't mean anything unless you actually join the WA.

[Texkentuck]

Your rants don't mean anything unless you actually join the WA.

Good point- All in good time.....