I actually wish this had not gone to vote without key questions answered by the proposer. In fact, people proposing amendments should be expected to answer questions and actually discuss.

The fact that those questions were not answered makes this in itself a law that if put into effect, can be used in the most nebulous or even maliciously intentioned of ways. 

Our government is or has been supporting a coup right now in Lazarus (an ally under the Celestial Union and right now the region has changed from any potential for democracy to what amounts to an Osirian\Cormac style monarchy - which some would interpret as a breach of our original alliance). Therefore, some clear delineations and definitions would have been appropriate as well as not pushing it to vote. Main supporters of this arrangement include Roavin and other Peace Keepers. Are they in breach of the law?

Ridiculous lack of addressing points and\or a lack of communication skills by Farengeto. This is how shoddy and malformed things make it to the law, only to then have to be parsed or revised. Probably by the courts or those with some level of rationale.

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

 

(This post was last modified: 07-23-2018, 03:20 AM by Escade.)

Reply

Without getting into the particulars of any specific person in the region, as a case might come before the court in the future, it’s not nearly as nebulous as you think, Belschaft. Imki couped TSP, so her actions in Lazarus are irrelevant. She was denied admittance to the CRS under identical language already in the Charter. If she were to apply again, in an alternate reality where a future CRS either doesn’t care or is sympathetic to her actions then, the provision would still apply just the same.

A coup has a definition: a sudden, illegal seizure of power from a government.

Your questions all relate to the *political response* to a coup, rather than the fact (or lack of it) that a regime of laws was overthrown by an individual or group of people. Our political leaders can debate whether or not to respond to a coup, but that doesn’t determine whether or not a coup happened in reality. TSP nearly recognized Funkadelia’s coup and debated doing nothing, because the resistance government was incompetent— that didn’t mean Funkadelia didn’t coup Lazarus, had a different decision been made back then.

Words have meaning in our court of law. Just because you approve of a coup doesn’t mean it’s not a coup, and vice versa.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 07-23-2018, 09:34 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Without getting into the particulars of any specific person in the region, as a case might come before the court in the future, it’s not nearly as nebulous as you think, Belschaft. Imki couped TSP, so her actions in Lazarus are irrelevant. She was denied admittance to the CRS under identical language already in the Charter. If she were to apply again, in an alternate reality where a future CRS either doesn’t care or is sympathetic to her actions then, the provision would still apply just the same.

A coup has a definition: a sudden, illegal seizure of power from a government.

Your questions all relate to the *political response* to a coup, rather than the fact (or lack of it) that a regime of laws was overthrown by an individual or group of people. Our political leaders can debate whether or not to respond to a coup, but that doesn’t determine whether or not a coup happened in reality. TSP nearly recognized Funkadelia’s coup and debated doing nothing, because the resistance government was incompetent— that didn’t mean Funkadelia didn’t coup Lazarus, had a different decision been made back then.

Words have meaning in our court of law. Just because you approve of a coup doesn’t mean it’s not a coup, and vice versa.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if this would solve that issue, but would a statement stating that would-be candidates can't run for office if they engaged in a coup unless that coup was supported by TSP?

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

Reply

Without getting into the particulars of any specific person in the region, as a case might come before the court in the future, it’s not nearly as nebulous as you think, Belschaft. Imki couped TSP, so her actions in Lazarus are irrelevant. She was denied admittance to the CRS under identical language already in the Charter. If she were to apply again, in an alternate reality where a future CRS either doesn’t care or is sympathetic to her actions then, the provision would still apply just the same.

A coup has a definition: a sudden, illegal seizure of power from a government.

Your questions all relate to the *political response* to a coup, rather than the fact (or lack of it) that a regime of laws was overthrown by an individual or group of people. Our political leaders can debate whether or not to respond to a coup, but that doesn’t determine whether or not a coup happened in reality. TSP nearly recognized Funkadelia’s coup and debated doing nothing, because the resistance government was incompetent— that didn’t mean Funkadelia didn’t coup Lazarus, had a different decision been made back then.

Words have meaning in our court of law. Just because you approve of a coup doesn’t mean it’s not a coup, and vice versa.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if this would solve that issue, but would a statement stating that would-be candidates can't run for office if they engaged in a coup unless that coup was supported by TSP?

I do not think that is the current intent of the amendment. The point being, I assume, that anyone who has participated in a coup of any kind, supported by the region or not, could be a potential coup risk in the future.

Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk

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’ve said my piece on this. Language is subjective and the nature of a coup in NSGP is as well; substituting the opinion of the EC for that of the voters is a dangerous step, and this law will be disastrous and lead to weeks if not months of fighting the first time it is applied or not applied.

That said, the assembly has made it’s decision. I look forward to cleaning up after it’s mess.

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

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

Without getting into the particulars of any specific person in the region, as a case might come before the court in the future, it’s not nearly as nebulous as you think, Belschaft. Imki couped TSP, so her actions in Lazarus are irrelevant. She was denied admittance to the CRS under identical language already in the Charter. If she were to apply again, in an alternate reality where a future CRS either doesn’t care or is sympathetic to her actions then, the provision would still apply just the same.

A coup has a definition: a sudden, illegal seizure of power from a government.

Your questions all relate to the *political response* to a coup, rather than the fact (or lack of it) that a regime of laws was overthrown by an individual or group of people. Our political leaders can debate whether or not to respond to a coup, but that doesn’t determine whether or not a coup happened in reality. TSP nearly recognized Funkadelia’s coup and debated doing nothing, because the resistance government was incompetent— that didn’t mean Funkadelia didn’t coup Lazarus, had a different decision been made back then.

Words have meaning in our court of law. Just because you approve of a coup doesn’t mean it’s not a coup, and vice versa.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if this would solve that issue, but would a statement stating that would-be candidates can't run for office if they engaged in a coup unless that coup was supported by TSP?

That would require a change to the wording. It’s been standard practice in TSP to not support coups of our allies, however.

At the end of the day, the purpose of a clause like this is to protect TSP. People who coup are likely to coup again— they have no inherent qualms with doing so. If an allied Delegate coups, and we support it, that doesn’t change the fact that they felt just fine ignoring the rule of law and going nuclear. So if that person is also a TSPer and runs for Delegate here, why would they behave any differently? Our democracy can get messy and couping can seem attractive at hard times. Somebody who has couped before is likely to do it again.

A couper supported today doesn’t mean they’ll be on our side next year. Public support doesn’t mean it’s okay. For example, there was plenty of public support when Hileville and Imki couped TSP in order to get rid of me, Kris, and Farengeto. We are today TSP’s Prime Minister, Chief Justice, Associate Justice, and members of the CRS.


@Belschaft: Given your prejudgment of non-justiciability, would you be recusing yourself?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 07-25-2018, 08:57 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Without getting into the particulars of any specific person in the region, as a case might come before the court in the future, it’s not nearly as nebulous as you think, Belschaft. Imki couped TSP, so her actions in Lazarus are irrelevant. She was denied admittance to the CRS under identical language already in the Charter. If she were to apply again, in an alternate reality where a future CRS either doesn’t care or is sympathetic to her actions then, the provision would still apply just the same.

A coup has a definition: a sudden, illegal seizure of power from a government.

Your questions all relate to the *political response* to a coup, rather than the fact (or lack of it) that a regime of laws was overthrown by an individual or group of people. Our political leaders can debate whether or not to respond to a coup, but that doesn’t determine whether or not a coup happened in reality. TSP nearly recognized Funkadelia’s coup and debated doing nothing, because the resistance government was incompetent— that didn’t mean Funkadelia didn’t coup Lazarus, had a different decision been made back then.

Words have meaning in our court of law. Just because you approve of a coup doesn’t mean it’s not a coup, and vice versa.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if this would solve that issue, but would a statement stating that would-be candidates can't run for office if they engaged in a coup unless that coup was supported by TSP?

That would require a change to the wording. It’s been standard practice in TSP to not support coups of our allies, however.

At the end of the day, the purpose of a clause like this is to protect TSP. People who coup are likely to coup again— they have no inherent qualms with doing so. If an allied Delegate coups, and we support it, that doesn’t change the fact that they felt just fine ignoring the rule of law and going nuclear. So if that person is also a TSPer and runs for Delegate here, why would they behave any differently? Our democracy can get messy and couping can seem attractive at hard times. Somebody who has couped before is likely to do it again.

A couper supported today doesn’t mean they’ll be on our side next year. Public support doesn’t mean it’s okay. For example, there was plenty of public support when Hileville and Imki couped TSP in order to get rid of me, Kris, and Farengeto. We are today TSP’s Prime Minister, Chief Justice, Associate Justice, and members of the CRS.


@Belschaft: Given your prejudgment of non-justiciability, would you be recusing yourself?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given your prejudgment of justiciability, will you be recusing yourself?

....

Thought not.

I don’t believe “Is X a couper?” is a question the Court can answer; that doesn’t mean that I don’t think the court can rule on this law. I can certainly see several BoR issues with it.

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

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

(This post was last modified: 07-25-2018, 10:50 AM by Belschaft.)

Reply

So, I realize I'm horribly late to this, so forgive me if someone already answered this.

But, how is this enforceable? Or, more specifically, who can enforce this?

At the very least, the law, as voted on, doesn't express who makes that determination. Like Bel has noted several times now, the idea of a coup is somewhat subjective and what I may determine to be a coup isn't may not be what Glen would call a coup and neither may be what Bel would call a coup.

I don't actually disagree with the premise of this law; but I do think it's missing something (especially given our lack of a codified Conflict of Interest).

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

What annoys me most is that I delayed the vote for literally a week waiting for more discussion, then I put it to vote since there was absolutely nothing, and now it's being debated while it's at vote.

Reply

I’ve said my piece on this. Language is subjective and the nature of a coup in NSGP is as well; substituting the opinion of the EC for that of the voters is a dangerous step, and this law will be disastrous and lead to weeks if not months of fighting the first time it is applied or not applied.

That said, the assembly has made it’s decision. I look forward to cleaning up after it’s mess.

 

So, I realize I'm horribly late to this, so forgive me if someone already answered this.

But, how is this enforceable? Or, more specifically, who can enforce this?

At the very least, the law, as voted on, doesn't express who makes that determination. Like Bel has noted several times now, the idea of a coup is somewhat subjective and what I may determine to be a coup isn't may not be what Glen would call a coup and neither may be what Bel would call a coup.

I don't actually disagree with the premise of this law; but I do think it's missing something (especially given our lack of a codified Conflict of Interest).

That's the problem, there is no clearly delineated definition that isn't tinged with some amount of political bias.

And correction, having been in the cabinet since Funk's coup of Lazarus - guess what we would have recognized that coup over my dead body. Everything I ever posted or did was against that recognition and I guess it was successful.

That said my reaction towards coups and our FA relations is intrinsically tied to believing that our word, faith, and trust is the best thing we have and that if we are allies we keep our word.  That's the TSP way - we have a treaty we don't eff that treaty or our allies over whether a GCR or a UCR.

The only thing enforceable is if we make a vote and add to the list of PNG players (post the GC I'm not sure what this is called now). Or some mechanism that allows for that. At this point since the GC, I mean is even Milograd on a list? Is there a list? Who is on it, where is it maintained?

I also see the proposer of the law not responding - really upstanding work as prime minister for the region so far. /sarcasm

Farengeto continues to be the kind of incompetent and uncommunicative legislator and now PM that this region wanted (not withstanding my "if this is what you want then here you are on a platter" vote) considering his message in the TSP Discord about how the previous cabinet proscribed Souls that attempted to absolve him of any decision making. That the PM of the region lacks the ability to stand by with conviction what he put in order (if he didn't believe in it he could have turned it down or gone another direction) along with this nebulous law that seems to be aimed at whoever specific people want to "keep out" or not is disgraceful to say the least.

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

 

(This post was last modified: 07-26-2018, 01:40 AM by Escade.)

Reply