[TWI Only] Supreme Court of The Western Isles

by **Linaviar** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:13 pm

This thread will serve as a place of general discussion for the Supreme Court Justices of The Western Isles. Internal procedure, proposed legislation, and the meaning of The Constitution may be debated here. It will also serve as a hub for judicial opinions, trials, and discussion about legislation that is likely to generate copious amounts of content.

Court Policy On Speech Concerning Non-Justices

In order to present the minimal possible undue influence upon the non-biased nature of the Court, residents of The Western Isles have the following restrictions placed upon their speech while interacting with the Court.

If, during a debate concerning the constitutionality of a proposed amendment, a justice poses a question to the author of said amendment, the author may answer the question only, and may only post without answer if they are to post a requested change to their proposed amendment.
A plaintiff or defendant may only speak, during trials, after a justice formally motions to the plaintiff or defendant that they may speak a certain length in regards to the trial at hand.
Non-justices may speak once to the court to announce a lodging of a case, or piece of legislation to the Supreme Court which needs judging before further action is committed.

Information on Trials

Court Docket

Judicial Opinions

Trials

The Western Isles v. Wadden-Amrum - Under Consideration

Proposed Legislation

World Assembly Delegate Procedures Act - WITHDRAWN
World Assembly Delegate Procedures Act (2) - REJECTED 0-3-0
Map Reform Procedure Act (2015) - APPROVED 3-0-0

by **Linaviar** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:26 pm

Legislation Debate Opening/Closing Template

Code: Select all: [align=center][size=150][b][url=LINK TO PROPOSED LEGISLAITON]Proposed: LEGISLAITON NAME[/url][/b][/size][hr][/hr][b]Purpose:[/b] [b]Legislation Text[/b][/align][hr][/hr][quote]LEGISLAITON TEXT[/quote] The proposed legislation is hereby open for debate OR [Strike]The proposed legislation is hereby open for debate[/Strike] The proposed legislation has been [color=green]APPROVED[/color]/[color=red]REJECTED[/color] by a vote of [color=green]YEA#[/color]-[color=red]NAY#[/color]-[color=blue]ABSTAIN#[/color]

Trial Opening/Closing Template

Code: Select all: [align=center][size=150][b]TRIAL NAME[/b][/size][hr][/hr][b]Prosecution:[/b] [b]Defence:[/b] [b]Trial Summary[/b][/align][hr][/hr][box]SUMMARY[/box] "TRIAL NAME" will now commence. OR [strike]"TRIAL NAME" will now commence.[/strike] The Court rules in favour of the [color=red]PROSECUTION[/color]/[color=green]DEFENCE[/color] by a vote of [color=green]YEA#[/color]-[color=red]NAY#[/color]-[color=blue]ABSTAIN#[/color] FOR CIVIL TRIALS [b]Opinions[/b][hr][/hr]

by **Dibeg** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:34 pm

Thank you Linaviar for creating this forum, I will definetly be pleased to discuss any judicial matter here.

by **Vancouvia** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:53 pm

I'm sure this will be an excellent first court.

by **Dansawae** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:52 pm

Dibeg wrote:Thank you Linaviar for creating this forum, I will definetly be pleased to discuss any judicial matter here.

And I also will. By the way I was thinking about an acronym for the Supreme Court, something like WISC(Western Isles Supreme Court[of justice]) What do you think?

by **Linaviar** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:57 pm

Dansawae wrote:
Dibeg wrote:Thank you Linaviar for creating this forum, I will definetly be pleased to discuss any judicial matter here.

And I also will. By the way I was thinking about an acronym for the Supreme Court, something like WISC(Western Isles Supreme Court[of justice]) What do you think?

If you're going for an acronym, i think SCOTWeI (pronounced Scot Way) is much more fun to say. Also falls in line with the precedent that is SCOTUS.

by **Vancouvia** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:11 pm

Looks like "scoot well" but our TWI doesn't really give us a whole lot of leeway with acronyms; I discovered that when the best I could come up with for an alliance name was WIND. Not a whole lot of words that have WI or TWI in them.

by **Linaviar** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:20 pm

Vancouvia wrote:Looks like "scoot well" but our TWI doesn't really give us a whole lot of leeway with acronyms; I discovered that when the best I could come up with for an alliance name was WIND. Not a whole lot of words that have WI or TWI in them.

Yeah, most likely it'll just be referred to as "The Supreme Court" or "The Court" given the lack of available acronyms. Also:

SCOTWeI

That look right?

by **Vancouvia** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:31 pm

Yeah that looks good; decide amongst yourselves what you want to go with

by **Vancouvia** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:43 pm

Amendment: http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=409105

I request you review its Constitutionality and then vote on whether it shall be moved to a regional vote.

by **Linaviar** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:10 pm

Proposed: Quality Over Quantity

Legislation Proposed by: Vancouvia
Purpose: To maintain the quality of the region map for regional RP purposes

Text at time of posting

RECOGNIZING the vast growth that the Western Isles has experienced over the past month, with now over 150 nations within its borders;

NOTING the strain that such growth places upon our regional map, our sole limiting factor for the continuing expansion of the Isles;

FURTHER NOTING that the map's capacity is currently roughly sixty nations;

DECLARING that the map's style and spacing are what makes it unique, and that to expand our regional territory would not only require tremendous effort but also diminish the quality of the region as a whole;

REAFFIRMING the map's purpose as a uniquely important source of information for regional RPs;

PROPOSES the following policy changes within the Western Isles:

that after a period of seven days without any significant activity and no prior warning of inactivity, an inactive nation shall be removed from the regional map
that the definition of significant activity is either posting on the RMB, participating in polls, publishing factbooks, or posting on regional threads
that nations with vulgar, offensive, unrealistic, or overly fanatical names shall not be admitted to the map
that nations with large expanses of land offer to donate a portion of their lands for the eventual use of new countries
that some small islands be set uninhabited for future RP opportunities

This Amendment to the Western Isles Constitution is hereby enacted.

Text Amendment 1

RECOGNIZING the vast growth that the Western Isles has experienced over the past month, with now over 150 nations within its borders;

NOTING the strain that such growth places upon our regional map, our sole limiting factor for the continuing expansion of the Isles;

FURTHER NOTING that the map's capacity is currently roughly sixty nations;

DECLARING that the map's style and spacing are what makes it unique, and that to expand our regional territory would not only require tremendous effort but also diminish the quality of the region as a whole;

REAFFIRMING the map's purpose as a uniquely important source of information for regional RPs;

PROPOSES the following policy changes within the Western Isles:

that after a period of seven days without any significant activity, an inactive nation shall be removed from the regional map, unless the nation has a long-standing record of activity or has issued prior public warning of their future inactivity, in which both cases their lands shall be held on the map until they cease-to-exist
that the definition of significant activity is either posting on the RMB, participating in polls, publishing factbooks, or posting on regional threads
that nations with vulgar, offensive, unrealistic, or overly fanatical names shall not be admitted to the map
that nations may voluntarily offer to give up a portion of their land as a donation for future nations to use, if and only if, they themselves choose to do so out of their own volition and no coercion or harassment of any kind is present
that some small islands be set uninhabited for future RP opportunities

This Amendment to the Western Isles Constitution is hereby enacted.

~~The proposed legislation is hereby open for debate~~
The proposed legislation has been APPROVED by a vote of 4-0-1

by **Randmar** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:59 pm

Not a Supreme court justice But I do want to tag this post just to keep up to date, so consider a Randmarian representative to be around taking notes of everything not specifically classified.

by **Linaviar** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:08 pm

Going to open the debate here as I seem to be the only one on at the moment. Lets address the constitutionality of the proposed legislation first.

Constitutionally, I think Articles II, III and V of the proposed legislation are completely clean. Nowhere in The Rights of Nations does there exist a guarantee of being granted a spot on the regional map, and the definition of article II only serves to clarify the enforcement of article I. However, articles I and IV of the legislation rest in a grey area due to the presence of Article IX of The Rights of Nations, "To have its national lands, waters, and airspace respected as sovereign ground." There is an argument, however questionable, to be made that a spot on the map in the context of the metagame is sovereign territory, and if this is the case then unilaterally removing a nation from the map would be a violation of Article IX.

Ultimately, I see no way in which the legislation could get around this grey zone, so the court's decision as to whether this is constitutional will set precedent on if, and to what degree, the metagame should be taken into account. Thoughts, everyone?

by **Bhumidol** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:04 pm

The amendment on the floor poses several concerns in the eyes of the Bhumhalese Justice in terms of a potential logical and constitutional problem that this may pose.

Assuming that this amendment does pass, it is my concern that this amendment, in concert with the current standing constitution may be misappropriated by donating nations to claim that their fundamental Rights of Nations was violated in donating lands, leading to a Constitutional Crisis.

Specifically, I express my concern in regards to article 4 under the, ‘proposes’, clause of the amendment, and section VII. under the Rights of Nations in the Western Isles Constitution. Both of these, if present in a newly modified constitution may be justified to get a large nation to give over some of its lands in the event that it refuses to do so under the pretense of, “violat[ing] the Constitution”, or the amendment that asks large nations to donate parts of their land. In other terms, ambiguous circumstance can be imposed on donating nations to get them to cede land. This may lend to a future Constitutional Crisis, if a nation were ambiguously made to cede land, and later claimed to be forced to do so. In such a case, section X. of the Rights of Nations in the Western Isles Constitution would be on the side of the donor nation, contradicting the other two before-mentioned parts of the Constitution.

To avoid the above situation, I propose that two changes be made to the amendment up for debate. These are to (1) explicitly state donation of land as, “The donation of land by a Western Isles Nation be valid only without any direct personal appeal made to the donor nation”, and to (2) explicitly state that in circumstances where donor nations feel they may have been forced to comply to a land donation that, “In the event that the donation of land by a donor nation is broken by the Donation Validity Clause, section X. of the Rights of Nations may be called onto for a judicial hearing on the land in question”.

~ Justice Chandhi Jimen (Bhumidol)

by **Linaviar** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:44 pm

Bhumidol wrote:The amendment on the floor poses several concerns in the eyes of the Bhumhalese Justice in terms of a potential logical and constitutional problem that this may pose.

Assuming that this amendment does pass, it is my concern that this amendment, in concert with the current standing constitution may be misappropriated by donating nations to claim that their fundamental Rights of Nations was violated in donating lands, leading to a Constitutional Crisis.

Specifically, I express my concern in regards to article 4 under the, ‘proposes’, clause of the amendment, and section VII. under the Rights of Nations in the Western Isles Constitution. Both of these, if present in a newly modified constitution may be justified to get a large nation to give over some of its lands in the event that it refuses to do so under the pretense of, “violat[ing] the Constitution”, or the amendment that asks large nations to donate parts of their land. In other terms, ambiguous circumstance can be imposed on donating nations to get them to cede land. This may lend to a future Constitutional Crisis, if a nation were ambiguously made to cede land, and later claimed to be forced to do so. In such a case, section X. of the Rights of Nations in the Western Isles Constitution would be on the side of the donor nation, contradicting the other two before-mentioned parts of the Constitution.

To avoid the above situation, I propose that two changes be made to the amendment up for debate. These are to (1) explicitly state donation of land as, “The donation of land by a Western Isles Nation be valid only without any direct personal appeal made to the donor nation”, and to (2) explicitly state that in circumstances where donor nations feel they may have been forced to comply to a land donation that, “In the event that the donation of land by a donor nation is broken by the Donation Validity Clause, section X. of the Rights of Nations may be called onto for a judicial hearing on the land in question”.

~ Justice Chandhi Jimen (Bhumidol)

Well said, this is indeed a marked problem with Article IV of the legislation, and is something that should be taken care of before consideration for passage. However, the Linavian justice feels that the first proposed amendment to the legislation still fails to provide sufficient protection due to the fact that malicious, indirect appeals may still be use to unconstitutionally urge a nation to become a donor. To this effect, the justice suggests that the first proposed change be altered to the following: "No nation may be compelled, directly or otherwise, to donate land to the region."

by **Vancouvia** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:44 pm

Bhumidol wrote:The amendment on the floor poses several concerns in the eyes of the Bhumhalese Justice in terms of a potential logical and constitutional problem that this may pose.

Assuming that this amendment does pass, it is my concern that this amendment, in concert with the current standing constitution may be misappropriated by donating nations to claim that their fundamental Rights of Nations was violated in donating lands, leading to a Constitutional Crisis.

Specifically, I express my concern in regards to article 4 under the, ‘proposes’, clause of the amendment, and section VII. under the Rights of Nations in the Western Isles Constitution. Both of these, if present in a newly modified constitution may be justified to get a large nation to give over some of its lands in the event that it refuses to do so under the pretense of, “violat[ing] the Constitution”, or the amendment that asks large nations to donate parts of their land. In other terms, ambiguous circumstance can be imposed on donating nations to get them to cede land. This may lend to a future Constitutional Crisis, if a nation were ambiguously made to cede land, and later claimed to be forced to do so. In such a case, section X. of the Rights of Nations in the Western Isles Constitution would be on the side of the donor nation, contradicting the other two before-mentioned parts of the Constitution.

To avoid the above situation, I propose that two changes be made to the amendment up for debate. These are to (1) explicitly state donation of land as, “The donation of land by a Western Isles Nation be valid only without any direct personal appeal made to the donor nation”, and to (2) explicitly state that in circumstances where donor nations feel they may have been forced to comply to a land donation that, “In the event that the donation of land by a donor nation is broken by the Donation Validity Clause, section X. of the Rights of Nations may be called onto for a judicial hearing on the land in question”.

~ Justice Chandhi Jimen (Bhumidol)

If I may, I will defend the amendment.

I disagree with your notion that the donation clause will set an unwanted precedent. I think the language is clear and unambiguous: "offer" and "donate" have connotations that mean to freely give, without force. This would also only be an issue for the near future, as eventually all nations except those who refused to donate would have small territories.

Linaviar, I agree that this decision will set a precedent on the metagame but I believe this amendment is a fair initial approach to the subject.

As to your Article IX point, that is a valid point. This amendment would set in stone a policy that sovereign ground is only sovereign if you maintain it at least once every seven days.

We will, however, take what you say into consideration, and have a new draft for you tomorrow morning.

William Cline
Senator, Vancouvian Congress
New Laws Committee

by **Dibeg** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:12 am

I believe that Linaviar is right to be concerned about artcicle IV, this should be clarified to require a completely voluntary donation of land. This couldbe encouraged by adding a clause that says:
If any nation or group of nations solicits a nation of this region to cede their sovereign right to land on the Regonal Map, and this solicitation is unwanted and harmful, as deemed by the concerned nation, then these solicitations will be regarded as harassment.
This firmly gives nations a way to complain about others who pressure them to donate land.
I also think that the seven days inactivity clause should be modified to provide exceptions for extraordinary, out of game circumstances.
For example, I have gone on vacation to mexico for two weeks, without access to internet, technically, this would put me off the map.
I think that although I will have been inactive, I fully expected to come back to the region and resume my former activity. This and other exceptions should be added.
I realize that these are not constitutional problems but I would like to bring them up nevertheless.
Otherwise, I am in favor of this legislation

by **Vancouvia** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:29 am

The amendment has been edited: http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=409105

by **Linaviar** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:43 am

I find the modified text to be acceptable. Not only does Article IV now include sufficient protection against coercion, but completely removes the possibility of framing the donation of land as a responsibility, significantly reducing the possibility of a conflict with Article IX of The Rights of Nations. Furthermore, the extra protection afforded to prominent nations will help further the goal of maintaining regional quality by allowing for unexpected periods of inactivity due to stellar track records. I await the response of the justices from Bhumidol and Dibeg, as well as the initial opinions of the justices from Dezaloth and Dansawae.

by **Dansawae** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:51 am

Vancouvia wrote:The amendment has been edited: http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=409105

"I also find the amendment to be acceptable and ready for legislation, I believe the seven days term might be at the edge of what is acceptable though: I would have prefered a ten days period. "
- Zhai Jouons, on the "Quality over Quantity" amendment

by **Bhumidol** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:05 pm

Vancouvia wrote:The amendment has been edited: http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=409105

Linaviar wrote:I find the modified text to be acceptable. Not only does Article IV now include sufficient protection against coercion, but completely removes the possibility of framing the donation of land as a responsibility, significantly reducing the possibility of a conflict with Article IX of The Rights of Nations. Furthermore, the extra protection afforded to prominent nations will help further the goal of maintaining regional quality by allowing for unexpected periods of inactivity due to stellar track records. I await the response of the justices from Bhumidol and Dibeg, as well as the initial opinions of the justices from Dezaloth and Dansawae.

In light of the newly amended amendment (strange huh?) I find that this resolves potential cases where passive aggression may be used to make nations, 'donate', land. I also applaud the Justice of Linaviar and the delegates of the Vancouvian Congress for amending the legislation to ensure rules guiding map removal were made more flexible. This accounts for nations ((such as my own)) whose RP style is purposefully withdrawn, but meaningful.

Linaviar wrote:Constitutionally, I think Articles II, III and V of the proposed legislation are completely clean. Nowhere in The Rights of Nations does there exist a guarantee of being granted a spot on the regional map, and the definition of article II only serves to clarify the enforcement of article I. However, articles I and IV of the legislation rest in a grey area due to the presence of Article IX of The Rights of Nations, "To have its national lands, waters, and airspace respected as sovereign ground." There is an argument, however questionable, to be made that a spot on the map in the context of the metagame is sovereign territory, and if this is the case then unilaterally removing a nation from the map would be a violation of Article IX.

Ultimately, I see no way in which the legislation could get around this grey zone, so the court's decision as to whether this is constitutional will set precedent on if, and to what degree, the metagame should be taken into account. Thoughts, everyone?

I myself initially considered the ramifications on the metagame this amendment would have, so I would invite you momentarily into my reasoning on the matter. The key distinction is, who do we consider as being existent in the region? Nations on the map, or nations on the map and those that wish to be/are active in the region? This determines nationhood as follows:

If a nation, after a notable period of time fails to produce any activity, either in terms of RPing or expression of absence, it would violate the Rights of Nations that do currently exist in the region. Due to the liquidity of existence in the game, existence of a nation, and to that end existence on the map are conditional upon activity in the region. Thus, a country that no longer RPs or does any other significant activity would technically not exist, and by denying their spot on the map to another potential nation that does have an interest in being active, we are violating the Rights of Nations article IX. for other nations in region not on the map, nations which by this definition are existent.

Anyhow, since these are theoretical ideas to an application yet to come, I vote for this amendment to moved to the Western Isles Legislature for vote, seeing that it conforms to basic norms and reasonable applications of constitutionality. I myself approve of the constitutionality of this amendment, and await the voices of the remaining three justices on this matter.

~ Justice Chandhi Jimen (Bhumidol)

by **Bhumidol** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:10 pm

Dansawae wrote:
Vancouvia wrote:The amendment has been edited: http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=409105

"I also find the amendment to be acceptable and ready for legislation, I believe the seven days term might be at the edge of what is acceptable though: I would have prefered a ten days period. "
- Zhai Jouons, on the "Quality over Quantity" amendment

The rational I think is that it doesn't take much to message the President or Vice-President of Western Isles the status of their situation (i.e. that they may be out for an extended period of time for whatever reason). This section of the amendment should thus make it allowable for nations to absent for as long as 60 days (the maximum amount of time that one is allowed to absent before one's nation is deleted, and by the amendment are also deleted from the map). It is great otherwise that you find this amendment to be agreeable, ~~and we now await for the opinions of the remaining two~~.

edit: I realize that Dibeg has also posted. I apologize for my complacency in almost missing your thoughts!

~ Justice Chandhi Jimen (Bhumidol)

by **Vancouvia** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:22 pm

I appreciate Linaviar's, Bhumidol's, and Dansawae's approvals. I think some very good thought has been produced on this matter, and this ruling will be deferred to in many future judicial decisions to come.

We thank you for your support and earnestly look forward to the remaining two Justices' thoughts.

William Cline
Senator, Vancouvian Congress
New Laws Committee

by **Bhumidol** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:30 pm

Vancouvia wrote:I appreciate Linaviar's, Bhumidol's, and Dansawae's approvals. I think some very good thought has been produced on this matter, and this ruling will be deferred to in many future judicial decisions to come.

We thank you for your support and earnestly look forward to the remaining two Justices' thoughts.

William Cline
Senator, Vancouvian Congress
New Laws Committee

Dibeg has already given aproval above ((to the amended amendment I might add)). Dibeg only questioned constitutional applications that he believed were for us to anticipate in the future. I have supplied a mini-quote below showing his approval. You can see again his comments above in full.

Dibeg wrote:
Otherwise, I am in favor of this legislation

~ Justice Chandhi Jimen (Bhumidol)

by **Vancouvia** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:36 pm

Then we wait only for Dezaloth

[TWI Only] Supreme Court of The Western Isles

[TWI Only] Supreme Court of The Western Isles

Legislation

Who is online