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.

Laws are assumed to be interpretable until the Court is faced with a case where it must determine justiciability. You have pre-judged that you would strike this law down as non-enforceable if it ever came before you, before it even passed, then said you look forward to “cleaning up the mess.”

If we already know the way you’re going to rule, because you’ve pre-announced a ruling prior to any case, that’s bias requiring recusal.

I have said I see no issue with justiciability, as a coup has a defined meaning. I have not pre-determined that I would uphold or strike down any specific application of the Charter, before a case has appeared before our Court. That is no more of a bias than me saying I believe the Bill of Rights is justiciable, even though there’s far more ambiguity there than in this amendment.

I’ve also already mentioned on Discord that I’d likely recuse myself from the initial case of this law being applied, for the record.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 07-26-2018, 08:47 AM by sandaoguo.)

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).

The CRS applied the exact same language when voting on Imki’s CRS application. So it’s obviously something that’s not actually difficult to apply.

We know what a coup is. It’s not hard to define. There’s literally a dictionary definition. You guys are conflating your difficulty in choosing whether or not to politically support or oppose a coup, with the objective reality of whether or not a coup happened.

A coup is the unlawful usurpation of power, often accompanied by the dissolution of a legitimate government, purging of political opponents, and ignoring the rule of law.

Yes, Tim couped Osiris. There was no legal basis to remove Almighty Jesus Whale. There was an inter regional, cross-alignment coalition that fought the coup. They gave up because military intervention was impossible.

Yes, Imki couped Lazarus. She violated the peacekeeping agreement, trashed a constitutional convention, and wrote her own constitution that installed herself as Delegate for life. The inter regional community turned a blind eye to it because there’s no real alternative. Also, she couped TSP.

People can dither all they want on the severity of coups, whether the Cabinet should respond, if they’re justified, whatever. That doesn’t change the underlying fact. There were legal regimes in place, a rule of law, and they were usurped by people who installed themselves in power. In Tim’s case, he helped Cormac purge his political opponent. In Imki’s case, she couped TSP!, but also there was an implicit understanding that people either accept her unilateral constitution or leave Lazarus one way or another. In either case, Lazarus and Osiris aren’t our allies anyways, so this is just academic.

Enforcing this law doesn’t require anyone to decide if a coup was ok, if we should support it or not. You just look at objective realty and determine of a government/legal regime was overthrown illegally. That’s not hard to determine. The court was able to figure that out when Hileville couped, after all.

As for who makes the determination, it’s likely the court at the end of the day. The EC makes the decision of who qualifies for the ballot. Disagreements about the application of law go to the court, though. Our elections are long enough to do that. That can be made more explicit, rather than just following the dots in our processes. But let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill— the people this law applies to are few and far between in all of NS, let alone TSP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 07-26-2018, 08:50 AM by sandaoguo.)

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).

The CRS applied the exact same language when voting on Imki’s CRS application. So it’s obviously something that’s not actually difficult to apply.

We know what a coup is. It’s not hard to define. There’s literally a dictionary definition. You guys are conflating your difficulty in choosing whether or not to politically support or oppose a coup, with the objective reality of whether or not a coup happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 

I agree. A coup is - in my words, with my understanding - an unlawful takeover of government by a small group of people. In NS this usually means taking over the Delegacy.

What is the true debate is whether TSP supports the coup or not. And as you said previously, no matter whether TSP supports the coup or not, it's still a coup.

The only solution I have in my head right now is a list of people banned from having a position in the Delegacy; this list could be expanded to CRS, PM, etc. I think there is a list of people banned from being a Legislator (and banned from the forum entirely), and maybe it could be expanded, but I don't think that would solve the problem.

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?

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.

Laws are assumed to be interpretable until the Court is faced with a case where it must determine justiciability. You have pre-judged that you would strike this law down as non-enforceable if it ever came before you, before it even passed, then said you look forward to “cleaning up the mess.”

If we already know the way you’re going to rule, because you’ve pre-announced a ruling prior to any case, that’s bias requiring recusal.

I have said I see no issue with justiciability, as a coup has a defined meaning. I have not pre-determined that I would uphold or strike down any specific application of the Charter, before a case has appeared before our Court. That is no more of a bias than me saying I believe the Bill of Rights is justiciable, even though there’s far more ambiguity there than in this amendment.

I’ve also already mentioned on Discord that I’d likely recuse myself from the initial case of this law being applied, for the record.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree with your assessment; to start with I don’t believe prior opinion requires recusal, and it would be seriously unworkable were that the case due to the size of our community and the likelihood that at least one of the justices would be involved in drafting most of our laws.

I have made a prediction that this law is unenforcable as written and will end up beore the courts accordingly; I don’t think one needs to be an oracle to see how the subjective nature of what is or isn’t a coup, the lack of any designated authority to make that determination, and the fundementally political nature of elections combine to make the law a shitstorm in waiting.

It’s clear that you feel this law is simple and easily enforceable; in contrast I think it is a row in waiting that will come to the court to resolve. I don’t think either of us need to recuse ourselves when it comes to the court over those statements.

_{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: 07-26-2018, 09:26 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).

The CRS applied the exact same language when voting on Imki’s CRS application. So it’s obviously something that’s not actually difficult to apply.

We know what a coup is. It’s not hard to define. There’s literally a dictionary definition. You guys are conflating your difficulty in choosing whether or not to politically support or oppose a coup, with the objective reality of whether or not a coup happened.

A coup is the unlawful usurpation of power, often accompanied by the dissolution of a legitimate government, purging of political opponents, and ignoring the rule of law.

Yes, Tim couped Osiris. There was no legal basis to remove Almighty Jesus Whale. There was an inter regional, cross-alignment coalition that fought the coup. They gave up because military intervention was impossible.

Yes, Imki couped Lazarus. She violated the peacekeeping agreement, trashed a constitutional convention, and wrote her own constitution that installed herself as Delegate for life. The inter regional community turned a blind eye to it because there’s no real alternative. Also, she couped TSP.

People can dither all they want on the severity of coups, whether the Cabinet should respond, if they’re justified, whatever. That doesn’t change the underlying fact. There were legal regimes in place, a rule of law, and they were usurped by people who installed themselves in power. In Tim’s case, he helped Cormac purge his political opponent. In Imki’s case, she couped TSP!, but also there was an implicit understanding that people either accept her unilateral constitution or leave Lazarus one way or another. In either case, Lazarus and Osiris aren’t our allies anyways, so this is just academic.

Enforcing this law doesn’t require anyone to decide if a coup was ok, if we should support it or not. You just look at objective realty and determine of a government/legal regime was overthrown illegally. That’s not hard to determine. The court was able to figure that out when Hileville couped, after all.

As for who makes the determination, it’s likely the court at the end of the day. The EC makes the decision of who qualifies for the ballot. Disagreements about the application of law go to the court, though. Our elections are long enough to do that. That can be made more explicit, rather than just following the dots in our processes. But let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill— the people this law applies to are few and far between in all of NS, let alone TSP.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I feel like very few coups in NS happen for the lulz and, are more often than not, couched in some sort of justification. And, in those cases, allies make a determination of who is reading the formerly existing law correctly. This was the most recent case with TSP where allied delegates, who liked/preferred the Hile et al., read the law that being on our side. That's where things get a bit political.

All that said, I'm not saying there isn't a definition of a coup nor that a definition could not be evenly applied. However, my point is that we can, in fact, parse words and our new law didn't give anyone the power to determine where or not something is (or was) a coup.

Further, I suspect the idea was for this to be more of a deterrent than anything else, but we all know how these things go. (Someone, likely Glen, will be EC, some known couper will attempt to run for lulz, appeal to the court, calling all sorts of things into question).

Instead, can I suggest we add a line *somewhere* saying that EC can make that determination and, if there is a question, it goes to the CRS, who makes the final call?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Instead, can I suggest we add a line *somewhere* saying that EC can make that determination and, if there is a question, it goes to the CRS, who makes the final call?

That would probably make this law enforceable, but I don't think it's a good idea; do we really want to be politicising the EC and CRS?

How about we just trust voters not to be idiots, and if someone who we think might coup runs raise the issue in their campaign?

_{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

Correct me of m I'm wrong, but I feel like very few coups in NS happen for the lulz and, are more often than not, couched in some sort of justification. And, in those cases, allies make a determination of who is reading the formerly existing law correctly. This was the most recent case with TSP where allied delegates, who liked/preferred the Hile et al., read the law that being on our side. That's where things get a bit political.

You’ve illustrated my point here, actually! Even if you think one is justified, a coup is a coup. It’s not a political question— how to *respond* is the political question. The law doesn’t concern itself with whether or not we think a coup is justified, but rather whether somebody has couped period. I explained a few posts back why that distinction matters.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

And yet TSP Peacekeepers are assisting in a coup right now....huh......

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

Instead, can I suggest we add a line *somewhere* saying that EC can make that determination and, if there is a question, it goes to the CRS, who makes the final call?

That would probably make this law enforceable, but I don't think it's a good idea; do we really want to be politicising the EC and CRS?  

It's not a political judgement call. It doesn't take politics to answer the question, "Was the rule of law followed?"

How about we just trust voters not to be idiots, and if someone who we think might coup runs raise the issue in their campaign? 

By this logic, we should get rid of all checks and balances, and nobody should complain about conflicts of interests or separation of powers... because, after all, we should just trust voters not to be idiots.

Anyways, this amendment is slated to pass. Based on Tsu's idea, I offer this additional amendment:

1. The Delegate will be the head of state of the Coalition. They will be responsible for helping maintain the security of the region, promoting growth and activity, and serving as an advisor to the forum-side government. Barring reasonable circumstances, the Delegate will hold the in-game Delegate seat. No person may be Delegate if they have participated, in whole or in part and at any time, in any coup d'etat of the Coalition or any of its allies, excluding normal raiding, defending, or liberation efforts as part of an organized military. The Election Commission will not add to the ballot any candidate that does not meet this qualification, which my be appealed to the Council on Regional Security.

Or, to keep things a bit more organized-looking:

1. The Delegate will be the head of state of the Coalition. They will be responsible for helping maintain the security of the region, promoting growth and activity, and serving as an advisor to the forum-side government. Barring reasonable circumstances, the Delegate will hold the in-game Delegate seat.

2. No person may be Delegate if they have participated, in whole or in part and at any time, in any coup d'etat of the Coalition or any of its allies, excluding normal raiding, defending, or liberation efforts as part of an organized military. The Election Commission will not add to the ballot any candidate that does not meet this qualification, which my be appealed to the Council on Regional Security.

Reply

Instead, can I suggest we add a line *somewhere* saying that EC can make that determination and, if there is a question, it goes to the CRS, who makes the final call?

That would probably make this law enforceable, but I don't think it's a good idea; do we really want to be politicising the EC and CRS?   

It's not a political judgement call. It doesn't take politics to answer the question, "Was the rule of law followed?"

How about we just trust voters not to be idiots, and if someone who we think might coup runs raise the issue in their campaign? 

By this logic, we should get rid of all checks and balances, and nobody should complain about conflicts of interests or separation of powers... because, after all, we should just trust voters not to be idiots.

Anyways, this amendment is slated to pass. Based on Tsu's idea, I offer this additional amendment:

1. The Delegate will be the head of state of the Coalition. They will be responsible for helping maintain the security of the region, promoting growth and activity, and serving as an advisor to the forum-side government. Barring reasonable circumstances, the Delegate will hold the in-game Delegate seat. No person may be Delegate if they have participated, in whole or in part and at any time, in any coup d'etat of the Coalition or any of its allies, excluding normal raiding, defending, or liberation efforts as part of an organized military. The Election Commission will not add to the ballot any candidate that does not meet this qualification, which my be appealed to the Council on Regional Security.

Or, to keep things a bit more organized-looking:

1. The Delegate will be the head of state of the Coalition. They will be responsible for helping maintain the security of the region, promoting growth and activity, and serving as an advisor to the forum-side government. Barring reasonable circumstances, the Delegate will hold the in-game Delegate seat.

2. No person may be Delegate if they have participated, in whole or in part and at any time, in any coup d'etat of the Coalition or any of its allies, excluding normal raiding, defending, or liberation efforts as part of an organized military. The Election Commission will not add to the ballot any candidate that does not meet this qualification, which my be appealed to the Council on Regional Security.

I may be missing something here, but I believe that a trustworthy nation that has supported TSP in all their lives - but has stages a coup somewhere - should be able to run for the Delegacy. I understand that they may change allegiance any time, which is why I would propose to add an article stating that the CRS may approve or disapprove of a nation running for the Delegacy. The exact wording I do not know, but that is what I want to see.

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