Your Excellency is welcome!
Advertisement
by Sionis Prioratus » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:45 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:49 pm
New Leicestershire wrote:OOC: Do WA resolutions apply to the WA itself? I know we've had this discussion but I can't remember the thread or what the consensus was. Certainly if the WA was mentioned by name they would apply but otherwise, I'm not sure...
by New Buckner » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:54 pm
New Leicestershire wrote:It already does that. I would suggest the honored ambassador read it again.
by New Leicestershire » Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:09 pm
New Buckner wrote:I merely think the wording needs to be re-done in order to clarify the specifics to it. It is quite vague and reading the comments of many of the other Ambassadors, section III seems to be the biggest sticking point.
As to my recommendation of the additional clause. Why wait to try and pass additional legislation that is in direct relation to this one. If you are going to be pushing for the passing of legislation that will set up Nations for these kinds of legal backlash from people who are set free, suites against lost time, lost wages, etc, why don't you just simple add an additional line that in one sentence prevents this from happening.
I know it makes common sense, and surely the Honored Ambassador Mr. Watts would agree that it would save time and remove one possible out cry to this bill not passing.
by New Buckner » Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:24 pm
by New Leicestershire » Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:28 pm
New Buckner wrote:If the Ambassador from New Leicestershire would review the conversations starting at the bottom of page 1, you will be able to follow along with the rest of class.
It makes perfect sense to include it because it has to do with the ramifications that forcing all members of the WA to enact this bill will open them up to these sorts of actions. It's called compromise. You want some nations who appose this legislature (as you will have with any bill) to open themselves up to recourse from the inaction of a law, yet you leave it up to them to create another law that is local to their own country to counter-act the actions of the law.
I don't think you see what I'm trying to point out. It has nothing to do with wrongful conviction, at least not in the governments view. It merely has to do with protecting the government from actions against it from someone who is set free from the passing of this bill by clarifying that if they are released from a law becoming a legal action, they can't turn around and go after (possibly even the WA since the law originates from them) for loss time, loss of freedom, lost wages.
It has everything to do with this resolution.
by New Buckner » Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:26 am
by Mad Sheep Railgun » Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:46 am
New Buckner wrote:Have no doubts sir, we will most certainly vote against it, and encourage everyone else to vote in against it if the resolution remains in it's current form.
Just because the resolution is at "quorum" the ideas and opinions we have on matters such as these will continue to be debated in these hallowed halls.
by New Buckner » Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:57 am
by Mad Sheep Railgun » Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:20 am
New Buckner wrote:I merely voiced my disapproval of what it lacked to make it a strong bill, made a suggestion as to what would make it a passable bill in my opinion, and then backed up my thoughts in forum. No where in that chain of events do I recall any sort of whining or crying. It was merely a suggestion of something I felt the resolution needed to have in it.
I have viewed an odd similarity, one someone recommends a change to a resolution, and some, to include the author of the resolution, don't like the suggestion - it suddenly becomes a "oh you just want me to change it to make you happy" situation...if you don't wish to receive criticism towards your draft proposals, than why would you even bother posting the drafts other than to say "LOOK MAMA WHAT I DID".
I will be sure to continue this argument once the bill comes up for vote.
by New Buckner » Mon Feb 08, 2010 5:19 am
by New Leicestershire » Mon Feb 08, 2010 5:32 am
New Buckner wrote:I began making my comments on suggested changes BEFORE it was cleared through. Regardless of the fact, I continued to voice my disagreement of it's contents and what it lacked, in the proper forum for such disagreement.
I get the point. Nowhere in there did I say it should be deleted, etc. I'm merely making my comments on my belief that the resolution is weak in its current forum and where it lacks at.
I understand why it isn't possible to change, and have no concerns or arguments with that. I believe it has all stemmed from a mis-understanding of where we lie in our understanding of what exactly the issues are here.
You are quite entitled to your opinion, as I'am to mine. If I sway so much as just a single vote against this resolution for what it lacks, I can consider my argument a success.
by The Palentine » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:04 pm
by Philimbesi » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:16 pm
by New Buckner » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:55 pm
by New Leicestershire » Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:30 pm
New Buckner wrote:This is a case of a resolution you wish to enact that will set free criminals if the law changes, those criminals aren't stupid. They will want retribution for their lost time and try and exploit the system to get such retribution. But you expect my Nation to suffer these, or either never change our laws so that once a criminal always a criminal (the thought of this does tempt me), or create another law and add to our legal system something that wouldn't even be necessary were it not for this bill.
You may continue to get upset over the challenging remarks to your precious Resolution, and I will continue to review them and respond, it is doubtful, but one day someone might just change someone else's mind in a heated debate such as this.
If you would like, the people of New Buckner would be glad to pay for some Political Science classes for you at your local university, maybe even a critical thinking class or too...
Mr. Sulla might want to ensure his mini bar is stocked, it might be getting alot of use over the next few months.
by Unibotian WASC Mission » Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:11 pm
New Leicestershire wrote:Unibot wrote:Pascal's eyebrow was lifted, "Well, indeed that is a strange circumstance. However if I remember correctly, back in the ol' ages of ages ago, in Unibotian history, our neighbor, Stash Kroh was being ruled by Arch-banana Franz Fackitler, who legalized genocide and committed a lot of atrocities before we as a proud nation stomped on their colony, and rescued the people. Stash Kroh later sentenced Fackitler to a death sentence for committing Genocide, even though the laws on Genocide had been removed by the Arch-Banana about four years prior to the genocidal acts being committed."
While he may have legalised genocide in Stash Kroh he certainly didn't have the power to legalise it in international law. Therefore he could have been convicted under international law without resorting to any ex post facto provisions in national law. Still, his act of genocide was 'technically' legal under Stash Kroh law when he committed it. I wonder though, was the law legalising genocide itself technically legal? Or might it have been unconstitutional to begin with? You have to look not only at the legality of the act when he committed it, but the legality (or constitutionality) of the law that enabled the act.
David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire
by New Leicestershire » Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:01 am
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:New Leicestershire wrote:Unibot wrote:Pascal's eyebrow was lifted, "Well, indeed that is a strange circumstance. However if I remember correctly, back in the ol' ages of ages ago, in Unibotian history, our neighbor, Stash Kroh was being ruled by Arch-banana Franz Fackitler, who legalized genocide and committed a lot of atrocities before we as a proud nation stomped on their colony, and rescued the people. Stash Kroh later sentenced Fackitler to a death sentence for committing Genocide, even though the laws on Genocide had been removed by the Arch-Banana about four years prior to the genocidal acts being committed."
While he may have legalised genocide in Stash Kroh he certainly didn't have the power to legalise it in international law. Therefore he could have been convicted under international law without resorting to any ex post facto provisions in national law. Still, his act of genocide was 'technically' legal under Stash Kroh law when he committed it. I wonder though, was the law legalising genocide itself technically legal? Or might it have been unconstitutional to begin with? You have to look not only at the legality of the act when he committed it, but the legality (or constitutionality) of the law that enabled the act.
David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire
It was legal for him to order whatever he wanted once he crowned himself Chancellor, his soldiers and populace condoned and assisted in the genocidal acts only to follow the orders of the Chancellor or else they would have faced persecution under the laws of Stash Kroh.
Once Stash Kroh joined the World Assembly, the nation was visited by the Compliance Commission, and it is to my knowledge that Stash Kroh adopted the legislation of the World Assembly (including the Genocide Act) as a series of Ex Post Facto Laws more specifically to punish the Chancellor.
Yours
Pascal S. Wager
by New Buckner » Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:11 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:12 am
New Leicestershire wrote:So the resolutions were not Ex Post Facto laws, they were just applied in an Ex Post Facto manner. Probably not sound legal practice, and I question the validity of prosecutions carried out in that manner, but that's not really what we're aiming to ban here.
by New Leicestershire » Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:48 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:New Leicestershire wrote:So the resolutions were not Ex Post Facto laws, they were just applied in an Ex Post Facto manner. Probably not sound legal practice, and I question the validity of prosecutions carried out in that manner, but that's not really what we're aiming to ban here.
I do not see why we shouldn't be aiming to ban it, Ambassador Watts. I was under the assumption that the proposal already did, though, with the first article?
[float=left]Dr. Bradford William Castro
Ambassador-at-Large,
Permanent Chief of Mission for World Assembly affairs,
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/float][float=right][/float]
by New Leicestershire » Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:39 pm
New Buckner wrote:Ambassador Watts,
You attempts to criticism the judicial system of New Buckner is a freshman attempt at slander. The Lex Publicus Quod Terra is staunch, but fair in it's delivery of justice. If a jury of your peers discover that the evidence the People's Examiner has gathered against you, then the punishment they decide is considered worthy. While the Court of Honors is always willing to hear cases where there as mis-deeds suspected, the number is less than 3% of all cases brought to the Tribune.
You fail to see where a Nation can easily get past this resolution, should it even be passed. Simply keep all current laws on the books, and nobody will be released.
While New Buckner already has in place laws that do in fact release prisoners if the law they were convicted upon is deemed un-lawful or there is a change, if of course that was the only crime they were convicted of...and the provisions are already in place to prevent them from seeking retribution against the People of New Buckner since they were convicted for illegal crimes.
Our strong dis-agreement for the wording in this bill centers around the fact that this is choice that we have made, and don't want to see this situation put upon another Nation by this resolutions attempt at passage.
Have no worries, the late night shows in New Buckner have enjoyed many a punch line at the expense of your comments here.
Now the drinking...if you would have mentioned that before, things would have made much more sense in this matter.
You won't have to worry about any lessons from New Buckner at our expense...it would merely be a waste of our honored professors time and that of the People's money.
I never implied the desire to partake in Mr. Sulla's mini bar unless offered. Simple making the point it is going to take large amounts of liquor to even make it through the process with this resolution.
by Unibot » Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:48 pm
New Leicestershire wrote:Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:New Leicestershire wrote:Unibot wrote:Pascal's eyebrow was lifted, "Well, indeed that is a strange circumstance. However if I remember correctly, back in the ol' ages of ages ago, in Unibotian history, our neighbor, Stash Kroh was being ruled by Arch-banana Franz Fackitler, who legalized genocide and committed a lot of atrocities before we as a proud nation stomped on their colony, and rescued the people. Stash Kroh later sentenced Fackitler to a death sentence for committing Genocide, even though the laws on Genocide had been removed by the Arch-Banana about four years prior to the genocidal acts being committed."
While he may have legalised genocide in Stash Kroh he certainly didn't have the power to legalise it in international law. Therefore he could have been convicted under international law without resorting to any ex post facto provisions in national law. Still, his act of genocide was 'technically' legal under Stash Kroh law when he committed it. I wonder though, was the law legalising genocide itself technically legal? Or might it have been unconstitutional to begin with? You have to look not only at the legality of the act when he committed it, but the legality (or constitutionality) of the law that enabled the act.
David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire
It was legal for him to order whatever he wanted once he crowned himself Chancellor, his soldiers and populace condoned and assisted in the genocidal acts only to follow the orders of the Chancellor or else they would have faced persecution under the laws of Stash Kroh.
Once Stash Kroh joined the World Assembly, the nation was visited by the Compliance Commission, and it is to my knowledge that Stash Kroh adopted the legislation of the World Assembly (including the Genocide Act) as a series of Ex Post Facto Laws more specifically to punish the Chancellor.
Yours
Pascal S. Wager
That's not an example of an Ex Post Facto law though since the Genocide Act and the other resolutions were in existence when he committed the acts, they just didn't apply to him since Stash Kroh wasn't a WA member. An Ex Post Facto law would be a law passed after he committed the acts that retroactively made what he did illegal. So the resolutions were not Ex Post Facto laws, they were just applied in an Ex Post Facto manner. Probably not sound legal practice, and I question the validity of prosecutions carried out in that manner, but that's not really what we're aiming to ban here.
David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
by Burninati0n » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:18 pm
by New Leicestershire » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:36 pm
BURNINATI0N wrote:I'm going to have to vote no on this one. I like the idea, and even support it. The thing is, I can't figure out why you've left an ex post facto provision in the proposal.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement