LegComm: Accepted Charter Amendment |
Oh, stop being a massive fucking hypocrite Unibot.
*coughs* TNI treaty vote *coughs* *coughs* UDL vote stacking *coughs* *coughs* UDL spying on GCR's *coughs* You play as dirty a game as I do, the difference is I don't wear a mask of goodie-two-shoes kitten hugging. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![]() (02-22-2015, 04:45 PM)Unibot Wrote: Thank you for clarifying your earlier remarks. A court system is a billion times more likely to be insulated from tyranny by majority than the political Cabinet.
Formerly Relevant, Currently Former.
Your are not a Citizen of the South Pacific. Please restrict your participation to your appeal thread.
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 (02-22-2015, 04:53 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Your are not a Citizen of the South Pacific. Please restrict your participation to your appeal thread. Only voting and running for office are rights restricted to citizens; they are the only rights you have the capacity to abrogate. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![]()
You are not even a Resident of the South Pacific. You have absolutely no rights in this region.
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
Because you started abrogating them.
There is no requirement for a resident to disclose their nation; you have no way of knowing if I do or do not have nation in TSP. Regardless, I choose to exercise free speech. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![]()
7. Citizenship may be temporarily removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet pending Criminal Charges. Within 48 hours of removing citizenship the Cabinet must present charges to the High Court. If 48 hours pass without charges being filed with High Court the removal of Citizenship will be automatically restored.
Alternate text which would put this power where it belongs which is in the hands of the Court.
In regards to the last sentence:
What about the possibility that the court could be unable to operate due to lack of appropriate number of justices to carry out legal procedure? A specific time constraint could allow one to loophole their way back into the region with proper timing. Quote:7. Citizenship may be temporarily removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet pending Criminal Charges. Within 48 hours of removing citizenship the Cabinet must present charges to the High Court. If 48 hours pass without charges being filed with High Court the removal of Citizenship will be automatically restored. This entire thing assumes you cannot be a security risk without having committed a crime. Our criminal code is limited to treason with regards to security. This misses the point of the decision entirely - the cabinet is fully aware that Belschaft has not been convicted of a crime, but he is, nonetheless, a security risk for The South Pacific. Furthermore, Let's hypothesise you're right and we shouldn't be removing people's citizenships unless they're convicted of a specific crime (something you've argued only since it was used against Belschaft). Your proposed system is absolutely untenable - everyone has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Under our current system, nobody is saying Belschaft has committed a crime, while actions are taken to remove a security threat. Under your system, Belschaft's citizenship is revoked under a criminal investigation before he is even charged. It's a batty, unethical miscarriage of justice.
(02-22-2015, 12:01 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:Sounds good to me. I think this makes much more sense to be in the hands of the CSS. I also feel that citizenship shouldn't be able to be indefinitely suspended.(02-22-2015, 09:59 AM)southern bellz Wrote: I don't know how this law isn't horrifying to everyone. The Cabinet has an unchecked ability to strip citizenship away from the entire region with no due process, no checks and balances by simply saying X is a security threat. And I havent even really seen one member of the cabinet think why this might be concerning to people who are not in the cabinet. I think this is a reasonable, forward thinking change that protects the region from potential abuse.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
|
Users browsing this thread: |
3 Guest(s) |