We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

[PASSED] Persona Non Grata Act
#41

If someone hadn't insisted their original draft was perfect, flawless and fully thought out, I wouldn't have concluded they were intentionally trying to strip most TSPers of their civil rights.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator

[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
#42

The problem is TSP is a feeder region. Declaring them persona not grata is still hard to keep them out. They can make a new nation that spawns here or just simply move a puppet in. If we weren't a GCR region, I think this act would be great.
#43

If I thought a *draft* was perfect and flawless, I would’ve motioned it right away. I said I wasn’t interested editing the law if I was going to be accused right off the bat of being an anti-democratic civil rights violator.

You went right to that tired nonsense, Belschaft, and I’m not really interested in wasting my time trying to get on your good side or write a bill you’re going to accept. I don’t find your thoughts on these matters to be all that realistic or reasonable, which you’ve confirmed by a) calling a literal rewording of a law YOU wrote unconstitutional on its face and b) saying outright that PNGs aren’t something you like anyways.

You, me, Roavin, and Farengeto tend to be the ones writing the most laws and debating the most here. But that doesn’t mean any of us need to seek out the approval of the rest. You don’t like this bill, so vote against it. Nobody has to change it to get you on board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#44

I think the bill is a good idea. It's just harder to enforce in a GCR region. I'm very new to this region and GCR government's in general. I've always been in a UCR region so I could be way off on this topic.
The South Crystal
Serving as a voice in the Legislature since April 2018!
#45

As I pointed out - with direct reference to the Charter - your draft is unconstitutional. I have even explained why. That you don't like that changes nothing Glen.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator

[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
#46

(04-17-2018, 11:14 AM)Belschaft Wrote: As I pointed out - with direct reference to the Charter - your draft is unconstitutional. I have even explained why. That you don't like that changes nothing Glen.


And I showed, quite clearly with tables and all, why it’s not. The notion that the Bill of Rights allows punishing an entire group for the actions of a few, but draws the line at singling out the problem individuals, is as ridiculous as it sounds. You won’t be able to stand by the constitutionality of the PGO law you helped originate and write, while also calling this bill unconstitutional. I *literally* copied your law.

If you were also calling your PGO law unconstitutional, challenging it in court, and trying to repeal it, at least you’d be being consistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#47

(04-19-2018, 09:59 AM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(04-17-2018, 11:14 AM)Belschaft Wrote: As I pointed out - with direct reference to the Charter - your draft is unconstitutional. I have even explained why. That you don't like that changes nothing Glen.


And I showed, quite clearly with tables and all, why it’s not. The notion that the Bill of Rights allows punishing an entire group for the actions of a few, but draws the line at singling out the problem individuals, is as ridiculous as it sounds. You won’t be able to stand by the constitutionality of the PGO law you helped originate and write, while also calling this bill unconstitutional. I *literally* copied your law.

If you were also calling your PGO law unconstitutional, challenging it in court, and trying to repeal it, at least you’d be being consistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a fat load of nonsense; despite your insistence otherwise, I have demonstrated the significant differences between your draft and the PGO.

Repeating yourself doesn't make what you're saying true.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator

[Image: B9ytUsy.png]
#48

(03-27-2018, 05:45 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Can we not make this a usual knock-down-drag-out fight between the two of you?

Instead of individualizing the PGO completely, can't we include a clause saying that if someone applied to be a legislator with ill intent it can be removed? That way, the base of legislator won't be subjected to this, but anyone coming here with that purpose can be kicked?

As for members who are here, if we keep the PGO that's a way to deal with that or finally we can still file criminal charges.

Bels Scrapping it out with Sand is a part of TSP's culture and History and I am offended that you would suggest they should stop.

;P
Greetings, I am The Serres Republic.

Currently 'The Future Greatest and Most Splendid General of All TSP.'

I know you all look forward to when I complete my grand quest ;P.

Official ‘Most Dedicated Raider’ in all of TSP. Look at me all evil and shtuff ;P

Heck I was MoFA, Now Im PM. I must be loved owo
#49

(I haven't forgotten this - rather, I'm dealing with Lazarus right now Tounge )
[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]
#50

Alrighty! *rubs hands together*

Here's what I did:
  • Merged Glen's draft and the PGO law into one "Proscription Act"
  • Replaced "Legislator/Non-Legislator" with "Member/Non-Member". As for why, consider PS2 or Auphelia or Curlyhoward.
  • Add optional Assembly override (for SB)
  • Riffing on Atlantica's suggestion: Either CRS or Cabinet can proscribe an organization or non-member. Both CRS and Cabinet together can proscribe a member.
  • Added two kinds of proscription: "full" (i.e. we want nothing ever to do with them) and "regional" (i.e. no nation and no Legislator, but it's cool if they hang out on Discord or the forum).
  • Generally reordered/reorganized stuff (including introducing the utility construct of "hostility")

---

Proscription Act
An Act to grant authority to declare hostile persons or organizations prohibited from entering or residing in the Coalition

1. Acts of Hostility

(1) Any individual, region or organization that was or is actively involved or complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific or its allies and partners, shall be considered hostile.

(2) Any individual, region or organization that has coordinated to exploit, manipulate, or unduly influence elections or votes in The South Pacific, or its allies and partners, on behalf of a foreign region or organization shall be considered hostile.

(3) Any individual, region or organization that has engaged in or has attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific or its allies and partners shall be considered hostile.

(4) Any individual, region or organization that has or has attempted to sabotage military operations of The South Pacific, outside of normal raiding and defending dynamics, shall be considered hostile.

(5) Any individual that is an agent acting on behalf of a foreign region or organization to the detriment of The South Pacific shall be considered hostile.

2. Proscriptions

(1) A regional proscription is a prohibition on an individuals or on all members of a region or organization from having a nation in any regions in the Coalition's jurisdiction.

(2) A full proscription comprises a regional proscription as well as a prohibition on access to off-site resources of the Coalition.

3. Grant of Authority

(1) The Cabinet or the Council on Regional Security may proscribe a individual that is not a member of the South Pacific, or a foreign region or organization, that they determine to be hostile. The Cabinet together with the Council on Regional Security may proscribe a member or a domestic organization that they determine to be hostile.

(2) A proscription must be issued publicly, and be accompanied with a report detailing the hostile acts. All extant proscriptions must be publicly visible at all times.

(3) Upon proscription of a region or organization, any members of the South Pacific affected by that proscription will have 7 days to demonstrably renounce their association to the satisfaction of the issuing authority before the proscription is enforced.

(4) The issuing authority of a proscription may revoke it at any time. For proscriptions issued by the Cabinet only, the Assembly may revoke a proscription by a supermajority vote.

4. Judicial Review

(1) Individuals subject to a proscription may challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostility in the High Court.

(2) Individuals subject to a proscription of a region or organization may challenge the issuing authority's determination of their membership in that region or organization in the High Court.

(3) For the purposes above, the individual must be granted adequate permissions to participate in the High Court proceedings for that case.
[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .