NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal GA #443 (PtEoI)

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21833
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

[PASSED] Repeal GA #443 (PtEoI)

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:03 pm

Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"
Image
Category: Repeal || Target: GA #443 || Proposed by: Wallenburg


Recalling the extensive history of World Assembly delegations addressing the question of capital punishment,

Rejecting the condemnable practice of sacrificing equal protection under the law and the obstruction of justice in order to prevent the execution of convicted felons,

Recognizing GA #535 "Death Penalty Ban" and GA #545 "Military Death Penalty Ban", two extant resolutions that enact bans on capital punishment without handicapping the ability of member states to pursue justice,

The World Assembly hereby repeals #443 "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" on these grounds:

  1. The target dishonestly disguises a death penalty ban as mere regulation for the purpose of preventing wrongful executions.

  2. The target converts member states into safe havens for suspected mass murderers, mobsters, war criminals, and terrorists as a result of the extradition restrictions in section 7.

  3. Several sections make a mockery of justice, embarrassing the World Assembly by their continued existence.

    1. By the creation and application of the Capital Cases division of the Judicial Committee of the Compliance Commission, a committee originally intended solely for the purpose of overseeing the publication of international agreements, the World Assembly imposed cumbersome and excessive oversight of the justice systems of member states. The Capital Cases division practiced oversight over every case in which a convict received a capital sentence, regardless of whether there existed any basis to suspect wrongdoing, negligence, or miscarriage of justice on the part of the member state.

    2. The capital punishment quota established in section 2 obstructed equal protection under the law, requiring member states to sentence criminals convicted of similar crimes to unequal punishments.

    3. Section 4.e facilitated disruptions in judicial proceedings, increasing the frequency of mistrials and the need for appellate verdicts, as a result of demolishing all limits to the defense's admission of evidence, including proof of fabrication or falsification, failure in the chain of custody, and standards of confidentiality.

    4. Section 4.f requires member states to prove that additional evidence, true or false, could not arise to "cast doubt on the guilt of the defendant for any charge which could carry a capital sentence". This raises the standard for conviction from "guilt beyond reasonable doubt" to an impossible standard of "guilt beyond any doubt".

    5. Section 5.a required member states to, following a guilty verdict at trial, grant the defense six months to review evidence, and grant the Capital Cases division another six months after that for the same reason, before carrying out any execution. In conjunction with section 8, which provided that trial certification by the Capital Cases division (and with it the authority to carry out an execution) expires after one year, this prohibited any execution in most member states.

    6. Section 8 permitted convicted criminals to avoid execution indefinitely and to obstruct the course of justice by merely refusing to "exhaust all available appeals".
  4. Section 6 required member states to only adopt execution methods "proven beyond any reasonable doubt not to cause pain or suffering". Since the threat of death itself produces emotional suffering in almost all individuals, and since no authority can prove that any form of execution causes no degree of physical pain or suffering, this again prohibited all execution methods.

  5. GA #535 "Death Penalty Ban" and GA #545 "Military Death Penalty Ban" exceed the desired effects of the target resolution, rendering its restrictions obsolete.
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21833
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:04 pm

Reserved
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Hulldom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 538
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Hulldom » Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:11 pm

"We agree with the repeal of this resolution, Ambassador. Though we should not that this is solely on the ground that the death penalty is already banned by subsequent law."

OOC: The only thing I can maybe think of to improve this would be changing "justice" to "reason" in clause 3 and slotting clause 4 as a new subsection f.
Forward. Forever.
Does not life’s fleeting dream also dream up there in space?
TNP Minister of World Assembly Affairs (views not those of TNP unless stated otherwise)

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9626
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:05 pm

Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Here to say "fuck yeah" on behalf of Delegate-Ambassador Smith... I think.
Last edited by Tinhampton on Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15841
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:29 am

"Support."
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
This video should be seen by all COVID-time Essential Workers out there. And others too, really.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3244
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:47 am

OOC: This was submitted. Regarding the argument presented in 3f. What impact does the word "or" have in section 8 of the target?

The second part of section 8 states that no sentences shall be carried out unless X, Y or Z. The repeal alleges that this means that all X, Y and Z must be carried out. I'm leaning towards honest mistake.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 4060
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:46 am

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: This was submitted. Regarding the argument presented in 3f. What impact does the word "or" have in section 8 of the target?

The second part of section 8 states that no sentences shall be carried out unless X, Y or Z. The repeal alleges that this means that all X, Y and Z must be carried out. I'm leaning towards honest mistake.


OOC: The target structures that sentence as a negation:

Nor shall member nations carry out such a sentence before...


"A shall not happen before X, Y, or Z" means all of X, Y, and Z must happen for A to occur. If only X and Y have happened, A is still occurring before Z and is thus illegal.
Last edited by Sierra Lyricalia on Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, Roach, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21833
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Aug 22, 2021 8:36 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: The target structures that sentence as a negation:

Nor shall member nations carry out such a sentence before...


"A shall not happen before X, Y, or Z" means all of X, Y, and Z must happen for A to occur. If only X and Y have happened, A is still occurring before Z and is thus illegal.

This. If X or Y or Z then not A. The context, though, should be enough. The roadblocks to completing an execution are laid out as:
  • the Division has not certified that there exist no irregularities in the case record,
  • the defendant has not exhausted all available appeals, and
  • the Division has not certified that all procedures involved with carrying out that capital sentence comply with provisions set forth in World Assembly legislation.
I'm rather certain the Division would be unsatisfied with member states ignoring two of these for any given execution.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11132
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:41 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Nor shall member nations carry out such a sentence before...

"A shall not happen before X, Y, or Z" means all of X, Y, and Z must happen for A to occur. If only X and Y have happened, A is still occurring before Z and is thus illegal.

I mean that's pretty self-evidently not the case. "You cannot use this road unless you have paid the toll or have a government licence plate" means I can use the road if I have a government licence plate. If it said "and" it would mean what you think it does.

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3244
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Sun Aug 22, 2021 1:36 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"A shall not happen before X, Y, or Z" means all of X, Y, and Z must happen for A to occur. If only X and Y have happened, A is still occurring before Z and is thus illegal.

I mean that's pretty self-evidently not the case. "You cannot use this road unless you have paid the toll or have a government licence plate" means I can use the road if I have a government licence plate. If it said "and" it would mean what you think it does.

I'm struggling to see how nor turns or into and.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281
THIS

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 4060
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Aug 22, 2021 1:52 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"A shall not happen before X, Y, or Z" means all of X, Y, and Z must happen for A to occur. If only X and Y have happened, A is still occurring before Z and is thus illegal.

I mean that's pretty self-evidently not the case. "You cannot use this road unless you have paid the toll or have a government licence plate" means I can use the road if I have a government licence plate. If it said "and" it would mean what you think it does.


Those are exceptions (unless, except, barring, or what have you). In the target, the condition of occurrence is a time or event (actually, three of them), not an exception. In that case, any necessary event not happening prevents the desired occurrence. Your fondness for lists suggests if you'd intended the meaning you're currently arguing for, you would have structured it that way to remove precisely this doubt. As is, the Compliance Commission has leeway to say that any of these three events not happening is sufficient to invalidate the carrying out of a capital sentence.

As Wally points out, the context makes your meaning plain: why have two separate, different certification steps by the Division, certifying entirely separate things, if they aren't both necessary? And if two items in this construction are necessary, the third can hardly be optional.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, Roach, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11132
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:42 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I mean that's pretty self-evidently not the case. "You cannot use this road unless you have paid the toll or have a government licence plate" means I can use the road if I have a government licence plate. If it said "and" it would mean what you think it does.

Those are exceptions (unless, except, barring, or what have you). In the target, the condition of occurrence is a time or event (actually, three of them), not an exception. In that case, any necessary event not happening prevents the desired occurrence. Your fondness for lists suggests if you'd intended the meaning you're currently arguing for, you would have structured it that way to remove precisely this doubt. As is, the Compliance Commission has leeway to say that any of these three events not happening is sufficient to invalidate the carrying out of a capital sentence.

As Wally points out, the context makes your meaning plain: why have two separate, different certification steps by the Division, certifying entirely separate things, if they aren't both necessary? And if two items in this construction are necessary, the third can hardly be optional.

Your response seems to deal with three things:

1. Exceptions. "You cannot have cookies from the cookie jar unless you clean your room or mow the lawn" is a pick one, not a do both. While I can imagine parents might want both to happen, if that were to be the case, one would phrase it in terms of "do both" or "clean your room and mow the lawn". Moreover, the interpretation you're putting forward is, not to put too fine a point on it, not entirely straightforward: the clause in question does not establish a list of prerequisites, it requires member nations to meet at least one of the following conditions before killing someone. (All the conditions lead inevitably to full Capital Cases division review, but that's the point: to force both prosecutors and defendants, opposed to just defendants, to send capital cases to the Division.)

2. Apparently when I write lists they mean something different from when other people write them? Or is it that you think I intended your interpretation? Because it pretty obviously isn't that I intended that. How do I know? Because I can assert it as the author. This "but when IA writes it, it doesn't mean what it says" is very irregular. A less irregular way to find meaning would be to look at the preamble of the law in question, per Blackstone, which would indicate interpretations in line with the stated goal of the law: producing a compromise on capital punishment. Viewing the target in terms of full abolitionism would be an extra-textual inference historically frowned upon. And even if the target explicitly framed itself in those terms, the clear meaning of the text overrides. Eg the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not intended to protect LGBTQ workers from discrimination (admitted by the majority and the liberal wing of the US Supreme Court). Nevertheless, "only the written word is the law". Bostock v Clayton County (2020) 590 US _ (slip op at 2).

What I think is meant here is to create grounds for some kind of judicial post-legislative scrivener's correction under something akin to the absurdity doctrine. That is very much out of place here. The absurdity doctrine applies only in cases where there is an odd result that emerges mechanistically from the text. Reading the proposal to create an odd result (a ban on capital punishment by not making enough appeals) is the exact opposite of what the absurdity doctrine would command. Only after an odd result is found can a purposivist examination commence. Commencing a purposivist examination to invent an odd result puts statutory interpretation on its head.

3. The Compliance Commission (or any committee) lacks authority to deviate from the wording of a resolution. What the Compliance Commission, or any committee for that matter, might think of it is a distraction from the actual issue of interpreting the clause. We cannot observe the actions of the committee; a GenSec member asserting that the committee might do something is, in reality ,just a fig leaf over what a GenSec member already chose to do. Nor would Compliance Commission determinations be dispositive; the actual authority to determine what the law means is vested in the Independent Adjudicative Office which determines the merits, per GA 440 1(b).

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 4060
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:33 pm

OOC: Just so we're clear, then: it is your contention that, other pieces of the target having been fulfilled, a nation may then execute a convicted person if they have exhausted all possible appeals, even if the Division has NOT certified an absence of case irregularities, AND it has not certified that all involved procedures comport with WA law?
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, Roach, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11132
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:45 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Just so we're clear, then: it is your contention that, other pieces of the target having been fulfilled, a nation may then execute a convicted person if they have exhausted all possible appeals, even if the Division has NOT certified an absence of case irregularities, AND it has not certified that all involved procedures comport with WA law?

Under that specific clause, yes. Other clauses may not be so permitting. The clause in question makes no claims as to being an exhaustive list of the conditions or prerequisites which must be fulfilled in part or in full, I am here taking an agnostic view on the issue at hand in the last post, before some nation can decide to kill someone. (The "Nor" signal being dispositive there.)
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8137
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:43 pm

Image
The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, Repeal "Preventing The Execution Of Innocents".
Its reasoning may be found here.


User avatar
URA World Assembly Affairs
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: Jul 09, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby URA World Assembly Affairs » Sun Aug 29, 2021 7:07 pm

The United Regions Alliance recommends voting for this resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1586162
Representing the members of the URA in the World Assembly.

Currently run by Scalizagasti.

User avatar
Free Domelec Gorjicartlan island
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 59
Founded: Feb 22, 2021
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Free Domelec Gorjicartlan island » Sun Aug 29, 2021 9:48 pm

if this resolution passes im focked because ummm..... Warcrimes
A kinda communist nation with post modern tech


User avatar
Axixic
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Jun 05, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

More Garbage

Postby Axixic » Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:11 pm

Repealing Previously Passed Legislation is a waste of governmental resources, pointless busywork, and hardly contributes to World stability. The sponsors of this legislation should immediately resign from the WA and bury themselves in a pit of itchy leaves until the next full moon.

Axixic has spoken, bless be those who heed those words! :bow:

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21833
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:14 pm

Axixic wrote:Repealing Previously Passed Legislation is a waste of governmental resources, pointless busywork, and hardly contributes to World stability. The sponsors of this legislation should immediately resign from the WA and bury themselves in a pit of itchy leaves until the next full moon.

Axixic has spoken, bless be those who heed those words! :bow:

"Sorry to bury you under the paperwork of removing bad law from the books."
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Texkentuck
Diplomat
 
Posts: 847
Founded: Jan 17, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Texkentuck » Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:25 pm

President Bram W. Schirkophf takes a puff of his cigar and takes a drink of his Texkentuck Vodka. Ambassador Verbatimkophf is sitting next to the president and is enjoying the same type of vodka and cigars.

President Schirkophf makes the following statement-

Our nation is strongly against the death penalty but once again. This proposal is right in line of domestic policy and by repealing isn't our nation saying we support the death penalty. We are simply respecting this nations judicial system to deliver justice. Also the proposal crosses over into the way war criminals are handled which should be a whole diffirent proposal. Now if their is a simple proposal that actually protects the innocent we will most definitely vote for it.



Ambassador Verbatimkophf states to the WA - this proposal is a conglomeration of two proposals....We must repeal this proposal which is crafted well but the nature of some of the text deserves it's own proposal.... He looks to President Schirkophf and states sir should I repeal?! President Schirkophf states firmly REPEAL! Then shouts with glee :lol: REPEAL IN THE NAME OF THE UCCR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Verbatimkophfs assistance walks over and hands the paper to the ambassador. Then each President Schirkophf and Ambassador Verbatimkophf Abruptly stamp the paper with their own stamp of For Repeal......

President Schirkophf then states to the WA. We repeal in the name of sovereignty. We repeal because this is a proposal that looks like two proposal wrapped into one......

Pres. Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
UCCR
Last edited by Texkentuck on Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:51 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Cathamye
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Jun 09, 2021
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Cathamye » Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:18 am

I could be very well off base here, but if the Death Penalty has already been abolished then what does this resolution (or the resolution that it attempts to repeal) actually do?

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21833
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:49 pm

Ogenbond, having disappeared from the voting chamber for some time, enters once again, shoes scuffing across the floor from the door to the author's podium. He draws a sheet of paper from his coat. It unfolds. Performatively calm, Ogenbond reads its contents.

"The Wallenburgian Office of Compliance and Investigation, having reviewed General Assembly Secretariat legality deliberations alongside Mr. Gensalkes, has returned its confirmation of its earlier findings. This resolution is, by all accounts, legal according to our Wallenburgian experts. It seems, however, the Secretariat's translators have a different opinion on the Anglican language. By section 2 of my office's Minimum Standard Policy, I am required to register an abstention on this resolution, and prepare my office to register a vote against it depending on the decision of the Secretariat."
Last edited by Wallenburg on Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Hookah Castle
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Jan 16, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Hookah Castle » Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:52 pm

Yeah I'll vote this. If any WA wanted to execute their criminals I'd offer asylum for them (and a job lol)

User avatar
Texkentuck
Diplomat
 
Posts: 847
Founded: Jan 17, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Texkentuck » Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:04 pm

Cathamye wrote:I could be very well off base here, but if the Death Penalty has already been abolished then what does this resolution (or the resolution that it attempts to repeal) actually do?



The President smiles and finishes a quick puff of his cigar.....
The president states- We believe that proposals have been put through which is overwhelmingly popular to WA nations and the WA tends to stack proposals which we believe to be against the rules of the WA. One of the many reasons we vote for the repeal...Their are proposals of this nature in place with other proposals....We believe it to be a rule that has been allowed to be broken...

Pres. Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck
UCCR

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads