|
|
Post by Staidear on Aug 24, 2023 11:00:23 GMT
Understanding that nations may be apprehensive about joining RP due to being unsure as to what is and is not allow, I am proposing a regional bill of rights. This document will outline what is allowed by assembly nations that are in good standing. I intend for this to be a living document that anyone can propose an update to at any time and that it will grow as we do.
This is in no way meant to be a definitive list and is more of a guideline for those that may be unsure.
At this point in time, I am seeking support, critiques, and additional items to be added to the list. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staidear on Aug 24, 2023 12:45:21 GMT
I have added "Nations have the right to run for regional office"
|
|
|
|
Post by Vobron on Aug 24, 2023 14:34:29 GMT
I would add the right for Assembly nations to represent themselves in the Declansburg regional court of law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staidear on Aug 24, 2023 14:37:10 GMT
I would add the right to represent themselves in the Declansburg regional court of law. Added |
|
|
|
Post by The Evergreen Republic on Aug 24, 2023 15:13:52 GMT
We support.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vobron on Aug 24, 2023 15:31:11 GMT
Seeing that our suggestion was added, Vobron supports.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staidear on Aug 24, 2023 15:48:37 GMT
I will leave this up for 24 more hours, after which time it will be moved to vote
|
|
|
|
Post by Everlasting Empire on Aug 24, 2023 20:09:09 GMT
In our view, the proposal is currently inadequate.
The structure indicates that it is some form of constitutional extension or amendment, as evidenced by the mentioned rights that primarily govern the interrelations between individual nations and the regional government.
Nonetheless, the proposal does not explicitly specify that it is of constitutional binding. Therefore, it can be assumed that it is simply a regular law.
However, we deem a mere amendment in a standard law inadequate due to the significance of the aforementioned rights.
In the event that the proposal intends to amend the Constitution, we request explicit clarification within said proposal. Additionally, we hold the belief that these rights should be incorporated directly into the constitution rather than being kept distinct.
We also express our reservations regarding the desired openness. Such crucial rights require a responsible approach.
The proposal states that the Bill of Rights does not supersede the Constitution, however, it does not elucidate their relationship.
We object to the first sentence as these rights are only accorded to nations that exhibit certain subjective qualities. These rights are granted only to those who are deemed to be "in good standing" and "within reason". Who determines whether a nation meets these requirements? This can lead to unjustness and prejudice.
The issue of when and by whom these rights can be revoked necessitates clear definition. A vague citation to a regional law violation is insufficient and fraught with risks. The potential for misuse of this provision is too significant.
Hitherto mentioned rights are not objectionable.
The wording, however, may be interpreted as a non-binding recommendation. If this is the case, the above comments are irrelevant. It is also unnecessary to have them approved by the Assembly, and the threatened withdrawal would lose its significance.
We are hopeful for clarification and, if relevant, adjustments.
In its present form, however, we are unable to give our support.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staidear on Aug 24, 2023 20:27:16 GMT
In our view, the proposal is currently inadequate.
The structure indicates that it is some form of constitutional extension or amendment, as evidenced by the mentioned rights that primarily govern the interrelations between individual nations and the regional government.
Nonetheless, the proposal does not explicitly specify that it is of constitutional binding. Therefore, it can be assumed that it is simply a regular law.
However, we deem a mere amendment in a standard law inadequate due to the significance of the aforementioned rights.
In the event that the proposal intends to amend the Constitution, we request explicit clarification within said proposal. Additionally, we hold the belief that these rights should be incorporated directly into the constitution rather than being kept distinct.
We also express our reservations regarding the desired openness. Such crucial rights require a responsible approach.
The proposal states that the Bill of Rights does not supersede the Constitution, however, it does not elucidate their relationship.
We object to the first sentence as these rights are only accorded to nations that exhibit certain subjective qualities. These rights are granted only to those who are deemed to be "in good standing" and "within reason". Who determines whether a nation meets these requirements? This can lead to unjustness and prejudice.
The issue of when and by whom these rights can be revoked necessitates clear definition. A vague citation to a regional law violation is insufficient and fraught with risks. The potential for misuse of this provision is too significant.
Hitherto mentioned rights are not objectionable.
The wording, however, may be interpreted as a non-binding recommendation. If this is the case, the above comments are irrelevant. It is also unnecessary to have them approved by the Assembly, and the threatened withdrawal would lose its significance.
We are hopeful for clarification and, if relevant, adjustments.
In its present form, however, we are unable to give our support.
While I agree with your critiques here, this is entirely meant to be a guideline for activities nations may participate in for roleplay purposes rather than a legally binding document. As far as definitions of "in good standing" are concerned, nations can loose assembly status if violating regional laws. In such case, they are no longer considered "in good standing". The "within reason" is meant to refer to a specific part of the Regional Constutition: |
|
|
|
Post by Everlasting Empire on Aug 25, 2023 22:46:36 GMT
While I agree with your critiques here, this is entirely meant to be a guideline for activities nations may participate in for roleplay purposes rather than a legally binding document. As far as definitions of "in good standing" are concerned, nations can loose assembly status if violating regional laws. In such case, they are no longer considered "in good standing". The "within reason" is meant to refer to a specific part of the Regional Constutition: Thank you for the explanation. We do not object to a non-binding guideline. |
|
