Illegal GA Proposals 2nd edition

[The New California Republic]

Repeal: “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#467

Proposed by: Eldenal

General Assembly Resolution #467 “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

I hereby ask fellow members to repeal this unjust regulation.
The case is about the violation of states rights and sovereignty regarding the acceptance of “Movement between sexes”.
No part of the Nation’s budget is to be spent on actions that may be found illegal under some state’s Basic Law nor is any citizen of any authoritarian country to be permitted actions that infringe said Basic Law.
Therefore, under the claim that WA resolution #467 passed on 16/7/19 infringes National Sovereignty, I ask to all the fellow members of this organisation to repeal this unjust ruling

Repeated use of "I", not written as law, reference to RL date, NatSov.

My my, another clusterfuck of a proposal.

[Grays Harbor]

Repeal: “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#467

Proposed by: Eldenal

General Assembly Resolution #467 “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

I hereby ask fellow members to repeal this unjust regulation.
The case is about the violation of states rights and sovereignty regarding the acceptance of “Movement between sexes”.
No part of the Nation’s budget is to be spent on actions that may be found illegal under some state’s Basic Law nor is any citizen of any authoritarian country to be permitted actions that infringe said Basic Law.
Therefore, under the claim that WA resolution #467 passed on 16/7/19 infringes National Sovereignty, I ask to all the fellow members of this organisation to repeal this unjust ruling

Repeated use of "I", not written as law, reference to RL date, NatSov.

My my, another clusterfuck of a proposal.

It also appears to be legislating in a repeal, which is pretty much an automatic no-go.

[Marxist Germany]

Repeal: “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#467

Proposed by: Eldenal

General Assembly Resolution #467 “Affordable Transgender Hormone Therapy” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

I hereby ask fellow members to repeal this unjust regulation.
The case is about the violation of states rights and sovereignty regarding the acceptance of “Movement between sexes”.
No part of the Nation’s budget is to be spent on actions that may be found illegal under some state’s Basic Law nor is any citizen of any authoritarian country to be permitted actions that infringe said Basic Law.
Therefore, under the claim that WA resolution #467 passed on 16/7/19 infringes National Sovereignty, I ask to all the fellow members of this organisation to repeal this unjust ruling

Repeated use of "I", not written as law, reference to RL date, NatSov.

My my, another clusterfuck of a proposal.

It also appears to be legislating in a repeal, which is pretty much an automatic no-go.

Possibly understandable English violation.

[The New California Republic]

It also appears to be legislating in a repeal, which is pretty much an automatic no-go.

Possibly understandable English violation.

It was understandable to me. Regardless, they have withdrawn it.

[Attempted Socialism]

Committee-only, wrong category, wrong strength, not written as law, legislating for non-WA members, probably contradiction with any number of current resolutions...

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1565399028

Fair Use of Primitive Or uninhabited Lands

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Zankabar

This proposal requires the assembly of a Committee in charge of enforcing this Act, which includes;

1: Any and all primitive and undiscovered lands must be treated as another nation. This means that all assets and things of value belong to that nation and may not be removed or claimed by another nation. The committee must also be informed and they will do as they see fit.

2: All uninhabited or unclaimed lands must be referred to the Committee and must be left untouched. The Committee will then do as they see fit, taking into account the people that found it.

3: Any and all nations that do not comply with these laws will be subject to a punishment decided by the Committee.

[Araraukar]

Committee-only, wrong category, wrong strength, not written as law, legislating for non-WA members, probably contradiction with any number of current resolutions...

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1565399028

Fair Use of Primitive Or uninhabited Lands

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Zankabar

This proposal requires the assembly of a Committee in charge of enforcing this Act, which includes;

1: Any and all primitive and undiscovered lands must be treated as another nation. This means that all assets and things of value belong to that nation and may not be removed or claimed by another nation. The committee must also be informed and they will do as they see fit.

2: All uninhabited or unclaimed lands must be referred to the Committee and must be left untouched. The Committee will then do as they see fit, taking into account the people that found it.

3: Any and all nations that do not comply with these laws will be subject to a punishment decided by the Committee.

Not entirely certain of wrong category, or legislating for non-members (given precedent that unless it refers to both member nations and all nations, it's considered to only refer to member nations regardless of language). Also, it's written like a resolution. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything it would contradict, either. It likely is wrong strength, as I'd think of it at least Significant, but given precedent, clause 1 would save it from committee only, and might actually be good for the strength. It does refer to itself as proposal, not resolution, but I don't think that's ever been illegal, merely silly.

So much as it LOOKS like illegal, it might not actually be.

[Attempted Socialism]

Committee-only, wrong category, wrong strength, not written as law, legislating for non-WA members, probably contradiction with any number of current resolutions...

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1565399028

Fair Use of Primitive Or uninhabited Lands

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Zankabar

This proposal requires the assembly of a Committee in charge of enforcing this Act, which includes;

1: Any and all primitive and undiscovered lands must be treated as another nation. This means that all assets and things of value belong to that nation and may not be removed or claimed by another nation. The committee must also be informed and they will do as they see fit.

2: All uninhabited or unclaimed lands must be referred to the Committee and must be left untouched. The Committee will then do as they see fit, taking into account the people that found it.

3: Any and all nations that do not comply with these laws will be subject to a punishment decided by the Committee.

Not entirely certain of wrong category,

Moral Decency cannot regulate what one nation does to another; it's a limit on civil freedoms.

or legislating for non-members (given precedent that unless it refers to both member nations and all nations, it's considered to only refer to member nations regardless of language).

Had it referred to just nations I could see your point; "any and all" is beyond a stretch though.

Also, it's written like a resolution. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything it would contradict, either.

I disagree about language, and don't want to go through all resolutions just to check if I'm right, so since it's still illegal for reasons above and below, I could concede either of these points.

It likely is wrong strength, as I'd think of it at least Significant,

All undiscovered land must be treated as a foreign nation with all that it entails? Any thing of value belongs to that nation and may not be removed? Without any clarification, this reads as absurdly absolute in power.

but given precedent, clause 1 would save it from committee only, and might actually be good for the strength.

The first line makes it very clear that it is committee only. If you delete all clauses for which a committee is responsible, which will return? Given the first line, the answer is none. The committee is responsible for enforcing clause 1 as well.

It does refer to itself as proposal, not resolution, but I don't think that's ever been illegal, merely silly.

That's part of why I don't think it's written as law (Add the unnamed committee which is only "require[d]" to be assembled and "will do as they see fit", and the fact that all things of value belongs to primitive and undiscovered lands which must be treated as nations).

Edit: And looks like Bears agree with category and non-WA members.

[Araraukar]

Moral decency, however, can legislate what the people of a nation are allowed to do. Still, you may have a point there.

If BA has marked the "all nations" as an illegality, then that's going against precedent, but GenSec can technically do whatever they want, including ignoring their own precedents.

On strength; how much "undiscovered land" do you think there is, given most people in the WA would think of resolutions in RL terms? Like, in RL we'd be talking of small remote islands at most. You need to go seriously past tech (Europeans discovering the Americas and Australia) or seriously future tech (discovering habitable planets that may or may not be inhabited already) for it to be of any kind of signifigance. Hence grudgingly admitting that it might just barely not be mild. But Strong would be way too strong.

On committee only; I wish GenSec precedent on reading the committee-only rule agreed with you. I really do. Because your way of reading that rule is what I keep saying. However, I keep getting overruled, so going by GenSec precedent, this isn't a committee-only.

[Bears Armed]

Not entirely certain of wrong category,

Moral Decency cannot regulate what one nation does to another; it's a limit on civil freedoms.

or legislating for non-members (given precedent that unless it refers to both member nations and all nations, it's considered to only refer to member nations regardless of language).

Had it referred to just nations I could see your point; "any and all" is beyond a stretch though.

Also, it's written like a resolution. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything it would contradict, either.

I disagree about language, and don't want to go through all resolutions just to check if I'm right, so since it's still illegal for reasons above and below, I could concede either of these points.

It likely is wrong strength, as I'd think of it at least Significant,

All undiscovered land must be treated as a foreign nation with all that it entails? Any thing of value belongs to that nation and may not be removed? Without any clarification, this reads as absurdly absolute in power.

but given precedent, clause 1 would save it from committee only, and might actually be good for the strength.

The first line makes it very clear that it is committee only. If you delete all clauses for which a committee is responsible, which will return? Given the first line, the answer is none. The committee is responsible for enforcing clause 1 as well.

It does refer to itself as proposal, not resolution, but I don't think that's ever been illegal, merely silly.

That's part of why I don't think it's written as law (Add the unnamed committee which is only "require[d]" to be assembled and "will do as they see fit", and the fact that all things of value belongs to primitive and undiscovered lands which must be treated as nations).

Edit: And looks like Bears agree with category and non-WA members.

Re it affecting non-member nations: Apart from anything else, we have from clause 1 "Any and all primitive and undiscovered lands must be treated as another nation" which means that -- unless those new "nations" are assumed to be granted automatic WA membership -- the committee should then have no jurisdiction over them...

I'd say that this isn't 'Committee-Only because, as that rule has been interpreted since a little while before GenSec was established, requiring member nations to interact with the committee -- as long as that interaction is significant enough to justify the strength, and not just a matter of filing papers -- is enough to avoid illegality for that and this proposal's clause about nations that don't obey the committee's rules being punished clearly implies a requirement for nations to act as the Committee directs in these matters. There was a period before that during which the stricter interpretation applied, but that was itself due to a change of interpretation by the Mods and the current situation in actually a reversion to the interpretation that applied originally.

[Marxist Germany]

I couldn't bother copying the proposal because of all the list codes
Possibly illegal for wrong category, looks more like global disarmament

[The New Nordic Union]

I couldn't bother copying the proposal because of all the list codes
Possibly illegal for wrong category, looks more like global disarmament

Did not bother to check if there were changes, but it is this proposal.

[U S Eh]

✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯
Hello Fellow Brethren of the WA!

It has come to my nations attention, that this proposal:
Banning Females From Frontline Combat Roles; isn't deemed, illegal.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=unitedamericanstate_1565658438

It is considered to be a legal proposal.
However, to my knowledge, it seems to belittle, and insult the opposite sex.

Could you guys correct me if I'm wrong in this matter?

Thanking in advance, Anonymous.
✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯

[Maowi]

It has come to my nations attention, that this proposal:
Banning Females From Frontline Combat Roles; isn't deemed, illegal.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=unitedamericanstate_1565658438

Except GenSec has already marked it illegal...

[U S Eh]

It has come to my nations attention, that this proposal:
Banning Females From Frontline Combat Roles; isn't deemed, illegal.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=unitedamericanstate_1565658438

Except GenSec has already marked it illegal...

It was made illegal after my post.
But thank you for the information.

[U S Eh]

Thank you Bananaistan, Bears Armed, Grays Harbor, and Sierra Lyricalia, for deeming that proposal, illegal.

Thanks again.
*Low Bow of respect.*

[Frisbeeteria]

Thank you for deeming that proposal, illegal.

This isn't a thread for commentary and thank yous. Please limit your posts here to the text of the proposal and the reasons why it's illegal. Thanks.

[The New California Republic]

Cancer Solution Act

A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.

Category: Health

Area of Effect: Healthcare

Proposed by: Whole India

Cancer a disease which is problem for years now time has came to take it out completely from its ROOT.
CLAUSE.
1] Increasing the research fund by at least 2% for healthcare and research.
2] Vaccines must be found for cancer.
3] banning the consumption to tobacco and cigarettes, alcohol. 
4] banning the production of tobacco and cigarettes, alcohol.
5] if any company making cigarettes or tobacco or alcohol. then that company will pay heavy fine and will produce medicines.
6] a coastal guard will be set in each country to prevent smuggling of tobacco and cigarettes, alcohol.
7] a regular health check will happen of every citizen monthly to find who is consuming tobacco and cigarettes, alcohol.
8] the people consuming will pay a heavy fine.
9] a good diet will be provoked in each part of country to prevent cancer.
10] each citizen will be made compulsory to attend the health check. 
11] new companies will be opened for creating vaccines.
12] bars giving tobacco, cigarette and alcohol will pay heavy fine.
13] if any company or bar still makes or distributes tobacco, alcohol,cigarette then that company will be banned.
14] the owner of company or bar will be taken in custody and he will be given punishment according the nations constitution.
IF THIS BILL IS ADOPTED.
1] unemployment rates will decrease.
2] crime will also be decreased.
3] cancer levels of death will decrease.
4] many people will live longer.
5] the taxes which the nation used to get will decline but according to clause 5 and clause 8 the fines will give more income to the government.
6] no body will consume tobacco, cigarette, alcohol.
7] a healthy nation and free from cancer nation it will be.

At the very least violates the comprehensible English rule in a few places. Case in point:

7] a healthy nation and free from cancer nation it will be.

[Bears Armed]

Cancer Solution Act

A resolution to modify universal standards of healthcare.

Category: Health

Area of Effect: Healthcare

Proposed by: Whole India

Cancer a disease which is problem for years now time has came to take it out completely from its ROOT.
CLAUSE.
1] Increasing the research fund by at least 2% for healthcare and research.
2] Vaccines must be found for cancer.
3] banning the consumption to tobacco and cigarettes, alcohol. 
4] banning the production of tobacco and cigarettes, alcohol.
5] if any company making cigarettes or tobacco or alcohol. then that company will pay heavy fine and will produce medicines.
6] a coastal guard will be set in each country to prevent smuggling of tobacco and cigarettes, alcohol.
7] a regular health check will happen of every citizen monthly to find who is consuming tobacco and cigarettes, alcohol.
8] the people consuming will pay a heavy fine.
9] a good diet will be provoked in each part of country to prevent cancer.
10] each citizen will be made compulsory to attend the health check. 
11] new companies will be opened for creating vaccines.
12] bars giving tobacco, cigarette and alcohol will pay heavy fine.
13] if any company or bar still makes or distributes tobacco, alcohol,cigarette then that company will be banned.
14] the owner of company or bar will be taken in custody and he will be given punishment according the nations constitution.
IF THIS BILL IS ADOPTED.
1] unemployment rates will decrease.
2] crime will also be decreased.
3] cancer levels of death will decrease.
4] many people will live longer.
5] the taxes which the nation used to get will decline but according to clause 5 and clause 8 the fines will give more income to the government.
6] no body will consume tobacco, cigarette, alcohol.
7] a healthy nation and free from cancer nation it will be.

At the very least violates the comprehensible English rule in a few places. Case in point:

7] a healthy nation and free from cancer nation it will be.

=>

Illegal - Category arguably incorrect (as this seems to do more in the 'Moral Decency' line than for Healthcare); Proposals must be written as the laws they will become, not with lines like "IF THIS BILL IS ADOPTED"; Resolutions cannot command impossibilities (which "Vaccines must be found for cancer" might be). If you want to continue with this project then I suggest strongly that you take it to the GA forum for redrafting & feedback.

[The Unfounded]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=byrdonia_1566528556

General Assembly Proposal

Strengthen Diplomatic Relationships
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Byrdonia

The everlasting grudges between nation's must end. Many regions are at each other's throuts over problems long forgotten. We must take action and establish more diplomatic embesies. This resolution will be open to amendments in the future.

No operative clause, right?

[Araraukar]

Strengthen Diplomatic Relationships

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

The everlasting grudges between nation's must end. Many regions are at each other's throuts over problems long forgotten. We must take action and establish more diplomatic embesies. This resolution will be open to amendments in the future.

No operative clause, right?

Well it's also full of Metagaming and the "future amendments" thing reeks of Game Mechanics.

[Grays Harbor]

No operative clause, right?

Well it's also full of Metagaming and the "future amendments" thing reeks of Game Mechanics.

And wrong category

[Araraukar]

Well it's also full of Metagaming and the "future amendments" thing reeks of Game Mechanics.

And wrong category

True, looks more like GD, Mild.

[Bears Armed Mission]

And wrong category

True, looks more like GD, Mild.

Agreed.

[WayNeacTia]

True, looks more like GD, Mild.

Agreed.

How is that Global Disarmament (not counting the complete illegality)? It does nothing to lower military or police spending in any way.

[Bears Armed]

Agreed.

How is that Global Disarmament (not counting the complete illegality)? It does nothing to lower military or police spending in any way.

Reducing international tensions reduces nations' perceived need to spend so much on defence, thus [on average] reduces military spending. There's precedent, from several proposals and resolutions about borders or 'Law of the Seas'. Admittedly it would be better if they actually spelled the connection out in the proposal.