+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+------ Forum: Private Halls of the Assembly (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-95.html)
+------ Thread: Proposed amendment to the Charter: Article 1.2.7 (/thread-3587.html)
Proposed amendment to the Charter: Article 1.2.7 - Awe - 01-15-2016
Given the Assembly's recent revision of the threshold for the reversal of citizenship denials from 75% to 60%, I wonder if the same should apply for Security Threats
Quote:7. Citizenship may be removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet if a nation is found to be a security threat. Citizens removed for being a security threat may appeal to the Assembly which may reverse the removal by a 75% 60% majority vote in favor.
On one hand, this ensures uniformity across the different clauses in the Charter. On the other, we must bear in mind that the Cabinet/CSS have thoroughly evaluated each designation of an individual as a Security Threat, and as such the higher threshold will perhaps be warranted given that such individuals present a detriment to regional security.
I seek the Assembly's opinions on this amendment.
RE: Proposed amendment to the Charter: Article 1.2.7 - Tsunamy - 01-15-2016
I'm a fan of having everything standardized. This also comes up so infrequently, that I don't think dropping this would be a problem.
RE: Proposed amendment to the Charter: Article 1.2.7 - Punchwood - 01-16-2016
All for it.
RE: Proposed amendment to the Charter: Article 1.2.7 - Lord Ravenclaw - 02-15-2016
I motion to vote.
RE: Proposed amendment to the Charter: Article 1.2.7 - Drugged Monkeys - 02-15-2016
I Second
RE: Proposed amendment to the Charter: Article 1.2.7 - Cormac - 02-15-2016
Well, to be honest, I would prefer a simple majority. This is an override of a Cabinet decision, so I don't see any particular reason a simple majority can't override a decision made by six or fewer Cabinet officers.
That said, 60% is better than 75%, so I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But I think it may be worth considering reducing it to a simple majority. It's also worth reconsidering security threat designations altogether, in my view, but that probably can and should wait for the Great Council while we make this fix now.
RE: Proposed amendment to the Charter: Article 1.2.7 - Awe - 02-15-2016
Up to vote
RE: Proposed amendment to the Charter: Article 1.2.7 - Awe - 02-15-2016
(02-15-2016, 07:58 AM)Cormac Wrote: Well, to be honest, I would prefer a simple majority. This is an override of a Cabinet decision, so I don't see any particular reason a simple majority can't override a decision made by six or fewer Cabinet officers.
That said, 60% is better than 75%, so I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But I think it may be worth considering reducing it to a simple majority. It's also worth reconsidering security threat designations altogether, in my view, but that probably can and should wait for the Great Council while we make this fix now.
All of the votes that previously required a 75% threshold to pass were lowered to 60% recently. This is the only outstanding matter on which the threshold hasn't been lowered, so I'm just keeping things uniform here.
RE: Proposed amendment to the Charter: Article 1.2.7 - Cormac - 02-15-2016
(02-15-2016, 08:03 AM)Awe Wrote:(02-15-2016, 07:58 AM)Cormac Wrote: Well, to be honest, I would prefer a simple majority. This is an override of a Cabinet decision, so I don't see any particular reason a simple majority can't override a decision made by six or fewer Cabinet officers.
That said, 60% is better than 75%, so I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But I think it may be worth considering reducing it to a simple majority. It's also worth reconsidering security threat designations altogether, in my view, but that probably can and should wait for the Great Council while we make this fix now.
All of the votes that previously required a 75% threshold to pass were lowered to 60% recently. This is the only outstanding matter on which the threshold hasn't been lowered, so I'm just keeping things uniform here.
That makes sense. Any discussion about a simple majority, or just eliminating security threat designations altogether, will be a good topic for discussion during the upcoming Great Council anyway.