The notion that the CRS (not CSS) can't or shouldn't develop a security law and send it to the Assembly is nonsense. We aren't banning Bel and then issuing an EO to justify it. We're sending it over to the Assembly, and then acting on it only if it's made into law.

I don't think you should be prevented from developing a security law. My objection is for it to start as an executive order. I genuinely don't care if you won't act until it becomes law, because my issue is with it being an EO in the first place.

Want to propose a bill? Have at it. Let there be a debate on it. Ensure it passes. But don't ask me to support executive action on security threats. We already tried that, it didn't end well.

And for the love of Max, can you start reading my full posts? Every new post I make is literally a repeat of something I said in the previous one.

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

Reply

Rereading it now I'm willing to accept Seraph's draft. Still not convinced the grounds for it are legal but I won't object.

Reply

I would like some more specifics though, such as a point on removal of the status (since it implies it is temporary for an investigation)

Reply

I would like some more specifics though, such as a point on removal of the status (since it implies it is temporary for an investigation)

We can always just push the proposed "EO" as a law instead.

My intention for writing two different classifications is that we'd have the "risk" for investigation and the "threat" if the investigation turned up something.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I would like to mention my previously suggested less drastic approach again.

Still using an EO we essentially declare that the legislator elligibility clause  applies at all times, particularly the security risk part which gives us a security threat option to revoke legislator status (and at this point with Bel did we even want more). It also addresses what is clearly a pressing ambiguity in the law and therefore irrefutably meets the requirements for an EO, and because it merely uses a reasonable definition of eligibility it's not targetted towards Bel in its design.

Reply

I would like to mention my previously suggested less drastic approach again.

Still using an EO we essentially declare that the legislator elligibility clause  applies at all times, particularly the security risk part which gives us a security threat option to revoke legislator status (and at this point with Bel did we even want more). It also addresses what is clearly a pressing ambiguity in the law and therefore irrefutably meets the requirements for an EO, and because it merely uses a reasonable definition of eligibility it's not targetted towards Bel in its design.

My main problem with this is that pulling legislator status doesn't do much but make us look like gestapos who want Bel as a second-class citizen.

The idea of revoking legislator or citizenship status has always been a terrible tool — even when we used it against Bel previously.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I would like to mention my previously suggested less drastic approach again.

Still using an EO we essentially declare that the legislator elligibility clause  applies at all times, particularly the security risk part which gives us a security threat option to revoke legislator status (and at this point with Bel did we even want more). It also addresses what is clearly a pressing ambiguity in the law and therefore irrefutably meets the requirements for an EO, and because it merely uses a reasonable definition of eligibility it's not targetted towards Bel in its design.

My main problem with this is that pulling legislator status doesn't do much but make us look like gestapos who want Bel as a second-class citizen.

The idea of revoking legislator or citizenship status has always been a terrible tool — even when we used it against Bel previously.

The problem is that our options are limited to doing nothing, revoking his legislator status or outright banning him. The former makes this whole process look weak and the latter is what would actually make us look like "gestapos". And I'm not speaking legally here, what other options do we even have?

Here is a draft of my alternative proposal:

Security Actions Executive Order

Realizing that the Cabinet and Committee for Regional Security are not empowered to take action where there is a Legislator who has concealed their identity or presents a legitimate and relevant security threat, the following is ordered:

Legislator Eligibility

3. All residents of the Coalition are eligible to attain legislator status through application with the Chair, predicated on the Chair ensuring they are not seeking membership in bad faith, are not attempting to obscure their identity, are not attempting to join with multiple nations, and the Council on Regional Security does not declare them a significant risk to regional security. Any member of the Assembly may publicly petition the Chair for or against a prospective legislator’s admission. Should a person with legislator status be found at any time to not meet these requirements, the Chair will remove their legislator status.

4. Continued legislator status requires active membership and good behavior. The Chair will remove legislator status from any person absent for three non-concurrent Assembly votes; legislators who have an approved leave of absence from the Chair shall not be considered absent. Additionally, the Chair may suspend privileges for disruptive members. Frequent suspensions may be grounds for ineligibility, if found appropriate in a fair trial by the High Court.

Simple, morally and legally unambiguous (if it's not someone please fix my wording), and ensures us the power to act in the case of several other circumstances including false identities, joining with malicious intent, multying and security threats whenever they occur and are found.

Reply

There is some room for ambiguity there. Your wording doesn't state who gets to decide if those conditions are not being met, only who can act once they have been. In most cases that wouldn't matter, but in the instance of declaring someone a security threat, it surely would do?

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

I could actually get behind Farengeto's proposal. It clarifies the reach of an already existing section of our law, so it wouldn't be an ethical overreach, and the interpretation it proposes is logical and plausible. My only suggestion would be to clarify the language by adding the language in #4 rather than #3, to make it clear removal would fall under the powers of the Chair to review the continued eligibility of legislators.

If the concern is that the scope of this EO might be too limited, maybe we should start by discussing what would we want to do, ideally, with Belschaft? That could give us a better idea of what kind of actions we would be more likely to take under similar situations.

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

Reply

I mean we've gone from providing the information to the Assembly and giving him a chance to defend himself to I don't really know anymore. 

This is what Seraph is talking about I think in terms of nebulousness:

"Should a person with legislator status be found at any time to not meet these requirements, the Chair will remove their legislator status."



Maybe something like this:

"Should a person with legislator status be found, by the CRS and the majority cabinet, at any time to not meet these requirements, the Chair will remove their legislator status."

I don't if this is better but it is more precise about who is doing the founding.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate 
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

 

Reply