Users browsing this thread:

Mall · 02-09-2016, 11:14 PM

Wait I was granted amnesty?

[Image: 5yCbAZM.png]
Former Major and Head of Military of The Black Hawks
Former Colonel of DEN Central Command
Former Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Patriarch of House Isaraider
Charter Nations of Antarctic Oasis

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-09-2016, 11:17 PM

Informally.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Mall · 02-09-2016, 11:19 PM

(02-09-2016, 11:17 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Informally.

Well slap me silly and call me [violet] I don't recall ever having even been charged with a crime to begin with.

[Image: 5yCbAZM.png]
Former Major and Head of Military of The Black Hawks
Former Colonel of DEN Central Command
Former Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Patriarch of House Isaraider
Charter Nations of Antarctic Oasis

***Kris Kringle*** · 02-09-2016, 11:26 PM

I did call you [mall] once.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

**Belschaft** · 02-09-2016, 11:38 PM

Eh, after the Milo coup it was agreed that going after everyone would have been a lot of time and effort for no real gain, when we'd have rather be healing the region. As such we agreed to issue a general amnesty, though not a legally binding one; the Cabinet just declared an intent to not pursue charges against anyone but Milo.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Marcus XIV · 02-09-2016, 11:55 PM

If the Assembly wants to grant amnesty, that's more than their right.

Well, yes.

The provision quoted says:
8. Within 48 hours of recovery from a State of Emergency, a report detailing the incident and the particular evidence used to justify it along with an evaluation of measures and recommendations of further actions to be taken by the Assembly, Cabinet and/or Judiciary should be submitted to the Assembly, which includes but is not limited to: recall motions, charges to be filed and grants of amnesty.

So the Charter contemplates acts of mercy such as amnesty and describes them as a 'further action to be taken by the Assembly...'. It's quite true that such a power could be delegated (for example to the Cabinet or the Judiciary) but no-one is suggesting that it has been. And 'includes but is not limited to' is extremely broad language. So the Assembly clearly has the power.

One of the many flaws in the contrary argument is that because of the opening words Within 48 hours of recovery from a State of Emergency, the power is somehow circumscribed to that case alone. To take a similar example: assume a Constitution provided that if the public drainage system is in disrepair, the Assembly will take measures, including but not limited to fixing the sewers. It plainly does not follow that the Assembly therefore has no power to build storm drains or extend the sewerage system. Such provisions are intended to be enabling, rather than restrictive.

~~Unibot~~ · 02-10-2016, 12:49 AM

Quote:One of the many flaws in the contrary argument is that because of the opening words Within 48 hours of recovery from a State of Emergency, the power is somehow circumscribed to that case alone.

I wasn't supporting that interpretation of the Charter, but I did say it was one possible interpretation.

The idea however that "grants of amnesty" being mentioned in the list in any way empowers the Assembly specifically to bypass the justice system does not hold weight, however. It's never said anywhere - nowhere - in TSP law, how amnesty is supposed to work, its limitations, who is supposed to administer pardons etc.

Tsunamy: this isn't a complaint per se to the current pardon on the table but an overall complaint lodged to the entire amnesty process, past, present and future - the system never seemed to be laid out in law; it's basically just made up - that ambiguity could be incredibly problematic.

As for everyone claiming the Assembly can do anything and everything: you're wrong, wrong and more wrong - and the little balance of powers and minority rights our system maintains presently depends on the fact that the Assembly is limited - it can rewrite the constitution all it likes, but it can't act as a judge or a parole officer or a Vice Delegate or as a CSS or as a SPSF General - there are roles we've dictated to particular people that the Assembly simply cannot usurp.

The Assembly can't undo a ruling, it can't change particular people's sentences, request the CSS change the endorsement cap (without changing the law) or ban particular nations, nor can the Assembly reject particular citizenship requests outright or order attacks, tags or liberations of particular regions outside of war; in many of these areas (citizenship, military, security, parole) the Assembly acts in an appellate or advisory capacity, and in the case of justice, it makes the laws, so taking on a further role as directors and adjudicators of policy-making would pose a conflict of roles with the Assembly's already pretty expansive roles and legislative functions.

(This post was last modified: 02-10-2016, 01:03 AM by Unibot.)

***Tsunamy*** · 02-10-2016, 01:10 AM

(02-10-2016, 12:49 AM)Unibot Wrote: Tsunamy: this isn't a complaint per se to the current pardon on the table but an overall complaint lodged to the entire amnesty process, past, present and future - the system never seemed to be laid out in law; it's basically just made up - that ambiguity could be incredibly problematic.

I'll reiterate my previous statement. Going down this path is harmful and divisive and exactly the opposite of what we want to do. While I appreciate the argument -- in theory -- that the Assembly can't grant amnesty, in practice we can and did.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Marcus XIV · 02-10-2016, 01:18 AM

The idea however that "grants of amnesty" being mentioned in the list in any way empowers the Assembly specifically to bypass the justice system does not hold weight, however. It's never said anywhere - nowhere - in TSP law, how amnesty is supposed to work, its limitations, who is supposed to administer pardons etc.

Well, exactly. It's what's known as a 'reserved power'. It's perfectly possible for a federation to assign reserved powers to the federal government, but it requires express words such as a grant: 'in relation to all Matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the [States].

Such a grant would simply be ludicrous in the case of a game such as NationStates.

~~Cormac~~ · 02-10-2016, 05:42 AM

If Unibot feels his is the correct interpretation, he should file a review before the Court as a resident of the South Pacific. There isn't much point in further debating it in the Assembly, as it's the Court that interprets the laws.

I will note that if the Court finds the Assembly can't grant amnesty as it just has, the Assembly can change the law to empower itself to grant amnesty. Given the margin by which the resolution passed, I think it's safe to say this debate is pretty much academic; amnesty will happen one way or another, because that is what the vast majority of voting citizens decided was best for the South Pacific. If it takes a change of the law, that can clearly be done as long as the margin by which the resolution passed continues to hold.

(This post was last modified: 02-10-2016, 05:42 AM by Cormac.)