I still don't like the idea of publishing this without some kind of plan of action, but I won't stop this.

Reply

I'll restate the concerns I expressed in Lubyanka. I won't engage in any public criticism of the decision taken by the Committee, but I am deeply uncomfortable with simply dumping this information in the Assembly without any kind of accompanying recommendations or advisory opinion. I realise that we have little legal recourse, but I feel our current intended course risks turning the situation into a court of public opinion, rather than a reasoned security discussion, something that should never be considered standard or even permissible practice for our institution.

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

(This post was last modified: 03-02-2017, 12:02 AM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

So that's 7 ayes, 1 abstain (basically), and 1 nay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I'll restate the concerns I expressed in Lubyanka. I won't engage in any public criticism of the decision taken by the Committee, but I am deeply uncomfortable with simply dumping this information in the Assembly without any kind of accompanying recommendations or advisory opinion. I realise that we have little legal recourse, but I feel our current intended course risks turning the situation into a court of public opinion, rather than a reasoned security discussion, something that should never be considered standard or even permissible practice for our institution.

But what plan of action? What do you want to do?

I mean I didn't think we were just going to be like "Here's a bunch of shit about Bel! Enjoy!" but present this as a security concern that the CRS and Cabinet felt should be brought to the Assembly's attention. And, that together we've realized we don't have the legal ability to do anything.

The alternative is, if we want to act on this, let's decide what we want to do, have Glen push legislation through the Assembly making that legal and then act on that.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Solution! Let's great creative here.

The entire Cabinet is on board yes? Then let's have the Cabinet write an executive order for the time being giving the joint Cabinet-CRS powers to restrict rights when needed and to also conduct a security investigation and make a determination.

Security Actions Executive Order / Act

Realizing that the Cabinet and Committee for Regional Security are unempowered to take action where there is a legitimate and relevant security threat, the following is order:

Where is there pressing and relevant information presented to the Committee for Regional Security and the Cabinet, together they make take the following course of action:

(1) Declaration of a security risk
     (a) Those deemed a "security risk" may be subjected to increased precautions including stricter endorsement requirements and limitations on running for office, while a joint task force investigates the matter.

(2) Declaration of a security threat
     (a) Once a citizen or legislator is deemed a security risk, the joint task force may strip legislator status, deny access to the regional forums or baneject the individual from the region.

These declarations are appealable to the High Court, where the joint task force and accused are able to present their sides of the issues, where the High Court may rule on whether or not the joint task force's actions have a reasonable basis.

This is a rough draft and someone who's better at law writing can take a crack. But, this would circumvent a lengthy Assembly discussion and get this up for a vote in three days.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 03-02-2017, 10:44 PM by Tsunamy.)

Reply

It would need to be addressing an ambiguity or hole to be legal, and the Cabinet does need to be unanimous.

The Cabinet could say that the Charter tasks the CRS with "responding to regional security issues," but doesn't say *how* it's supposed to. Also, given that Bel is above the cap, the CRS can eject him, and this EO would basically be setting the details of how the CRS determines a "security risk" for Article IX, Sec 8.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I can find several ways this could be illegal and this could easily be struck from law by the court if it was enacted.

Reply

Check Discord for discussion on that point.

If the Assembly adopts it as law, it's a done deal anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

Check Discord for discussion on that point.

If the Assembly adopts it as law, it's a done deal anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I mean, the court can strike an Assembly law. But ...

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I'm extremely concerned about the terms of that proposal and would find myself unable to support it (or refrain from publicly expressing concern) if it was submitted.

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

(This post was last modified: 03-02-2017, 12:50 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply