Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 06-11-2014, 11:19 PM

I would like to propose the following as a new Article One of the Charter;

Quote:Article One - Fundemental Ideals and Principles
1. We, the people of The Coalition of The South Pacific, establish the following as the fundamental and immutable ideals and principles of our republic.
2. Democracy; that we the people, represented by our Assembly, are sovereign in all matters and have the sole right and power to determine our own constitution, laws and officials, that all rights and duties stem from such sovereignty and that we alone have the right to end or alter the compact that is this Charter.
3. Liberty; that all posses the inherent liberty to act, and speak, and think as they do wish so far as it does not infringe upon the liberty of others or impugn upon the safety of the region, in accordance with those rights and restrictions we codify and establish by law.
4. Equality; that all are equal before the law, shall bear equal rights and liberties, and that those officials we elect or appoint are no more than first amongst equals, and for such time only as their office lasts.
5. Tolerance; that all are entitled to the dignity of respect, despite race or sex or faith or creed, that the state shall establish no preference in favour of one or discriminate against another.
6. Independence; that ours is an independent region, devoid of any prescribed military ideology or alignment, and that our officials shall act on such basis.

It does exactly what it says on the tin; lays out certain principles and ideals that are at the heart of the Coalition, and proclaims them immutable. I draw special attention to Clause 6, that would prohibit the region from adopting either a Defender or Raider identity. It renders us formally independent from R/D, and hopefully will banish forever this tedious argument.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 06-12-2014, 03:06 AM by Gordon Freeman.)

**Farengeto** · 06-11-2014, 11:27 PM

Anything to end this futile and nonsensical argument.

Awe · 06-11-2014, 11:29 PM

Is there a difference between this and the BoR?

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information

**Belschaft** · 06-11-2014, 11:33 PM

Yes. The BoR grants individual and specific rights - ie; speech, fair trial, etc - whilst this identifies broad founding principles. Democracy, liberty, equality, tolerance, independence.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Awe · 06-11-2014, 11:44 PM

Can we just change all instances of the word "magistrate(s)" to "official(s)" for the sake of consistency across the laws? Other than that I don't really see an issue with this Bill.

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information

**Belschaft** · 06-12-2014, 12:16 AM

Sure.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 06-12-2014, 02:31 AM

Democracy, liberty, equality, and tolerance, all good things. But I do not subscribe to "Independence" and the Charter should not be used to force me, nor anybody else, to do so if they want to participate in regional government. What you propose is no different than what you damn Osiris and Lazarus for doing. Furthermore, this would render all treaties and diplomatic relations null and void, and prohibit them for as long as this Charter amendment would stand.

(This post was last modified: 06-12-2014, 02:33 AM by Tsunamy.)

**Belschaft** · 06-12-2014, 02:54 AM

Reworded clause six to prevent any possible reading along those lines.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 06-12-2014, 03:05 AM by Gordon Freeman.)

***sandaoguo*** · 06-12-2014, 03:08 AM

People running in elections would not be allowed to proclaim any position in NS Gameplay aside from "Independence," because all elected officials would be banned from pursuing defender, raider, or imperialist ambitions anyways. It forces an ideology upon anybody who wants to run for office, no matter how many times you vehemently deny that Independence is an ideology.

It would declare all of our treaties null and void, because TSP would be banned from doing anything that creates an "allegiance or alignment." Every single one of our treaties creates an allegiance. Every one our treaties with a non-neutral region forces an alignment.

Though I suspect you would argue that, for example, the TSP-TNI treaty doesn't do anything of the sort. You would be wrong, but there's no objective way to determine that. So it would be up to the "Independent" members of the Cabinet and the courts to determine when a treaty creates an alignment, and their decision would no doubt be based on their political alignment.

**Belschaft** · 06-12-2014, 03:17 AM

As I said, I've reworded it to prevent any such interpretations. It specifically prohibits a "prescribed military ideology or alignment", and prevents officials from introducing one on the sly. The region could not become raider, nor the MoA turn the SPSF into a de-facto raider force.

The objective is to put this issue out to pasture, and make it explicitly clear that this region is neither raider or defender, so we can all move on and deal with more important things.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 06-12-2014, 03:21 AM by Gordon Freeman.)