View Topic

Yeah, pengu was added last minute as I remembered he was technically a member... although I fixed it. Thanks Reon :p

I'm feeling particularly nitpicky today, don't ask me why!

So...why are you feeling nitpicky?

Fucking Rebels.

...Anyway, I agree with Pengu.  This is pretty much the hardest any shit is ever going to hit the fan regarding a treaty ally.  If we can't at least take a symbolic stance against the hostile faction, then I don't see the point of even having treaties.  This is WAR - people are going to get offended.  The citizens and senators of the PRL are probably a lot more than offended right now. 

It seems that the debate has been had. I will leave further action on this proposal to the Storting.

If someone who is competent with writing this up in bill form (which I'm unfortunately still getting the hang of <.<) wants to write it up, I'll be more than happy to bring this into the Underhusen for discussion/voting.

I'll write something up later. Tuesdays and Thursdays are the busiest days for me.

Well it depends on what you wish to do. Do you wish to:

a) Add a citizenship requirement
b) Make it a high-crime for a citizen to be a citizen within the NPO/NLO.

A would lead to loss of citizenship(which is appealable). B sends it through the court system which may, or may not, choose to enforce the law.

I've written two versions of A here:

Version A

Title
1. The Anti-NPO/NLO citizenship requirement act

Amendments
2. Section 2.1 of the Citizenship and Demonym act shall be amended to read as follows:

2.1 Citizens are required to keep the nation which they gained membership with within the region unless they inform the person (or government agency) empowered to accept or reject citizenship applications by section 2.4 of this act. Citizens also are forbidden from holding citizenship in the New Lazarene Order and/or the New Pacific Order. A monthly sweep shall be conducted to ensure citizens are in compliance. 

Title
1. The Anti-NPO/NLO citizenship requirement act

Amendments
2. Section 2.5 shall be added, and it shall read as follows:

    2.5 Citizens are additionally required to not hold citizenship within the New Lazarene Order and/or the New Pacific Order.

And two versions of B

Version B

Title
1. This shall be titled as the Code of Criminal Laws Amendment I

Amendments
2. The Code of Criminal Laws shall be amended to add section 6.1.6. Section 6.1.6 shall read as follows:

      6.1.6 No Citizen shall hold Citizenship within the New Pacific Order and/or the New Lazarene Order.

Title
1. The Expansion of Aiding and Abetting in the Code of Criminal Laws Act.

Amendments
2. Section 8.5 shall be added which shall read:

    8.5 Section 6.1.6 shall be exempt from the statute of limitations as it is an continuing offense.

3. Section 9.3 shall be added which shall read as follows:

    9.3 Aiding and abetting a region shall be defined as, "An act that strengthens a Region, which includes but is not limited to: Actively seeking, holding, and maintaining Citizenship, Participating within their Military, Holding government positions willingly and knowingly."

Also the Second Version of B requires the Storting to declare war, a power which the Storting has yet to ever actually use.

Keep in mind the names used are ones that I came up with on the spot, feel free to use the rest of the bill with a different name.

Thank you for your drafts, Chanku. I would support any of those drafts.

Yes, thank you very much for taking the time to write up all of those different versions of the bill.  ^_^  I actually like that you split them like that to give a choice as to which may sound better. 

I guess the only question now is what version people prefer the most.

Although I will say, I noticed you said "Also the Second Version of B requires the Storting to declare war"

I'm a little confused on what you're saying here.  Do you mean that we'd have to declare war to invoke the 2nd version, or that the outcome would be us declaring war?

Oh, I didn't notice that war bit...I had just woken up when I read through that.

I do not support a war declaration against the NPO at this time. While I think it would be wise to take action directly against The Pacific, it should be done through diplomatic consensus and there has been no talk of taking such action so far, as far as I know.

The second one expands the clause of Section 6.1.3, which is the high crime of helping a region we are at war with

Code of Criminal Laws, Section 6.1.3

6.1.3 Aiding and abetting a region Wintreath is currently at war with.

Therefore in order to aide it, it would need to declare war. At least for Version B2.

You see Version B2 does not directly outlaw citizenship of the NPO/NLO, but instead indirectly does it by expanding the coverage of Section 6.1.3. Although an effect of this, is that any future region we declare war on, this would work in those cases too.

Also keep in mind there is ONE major difference between A and B versions:
Remember that A versions removes the courts from the process, except in the case of appealing your citizenship revocation. It allows the Monarch to remove citizenship as soon as they gain citizenship, since they lack the citizenship requirements, however the law itself only requires it to be checked once a month, and then citizenship revoked.

The B version makes it illegal, and thus requires a court trial where the law may, or may not, be enforced. Even then it doesn't require that they loose citizenship, they can give them any punishment within the parameters of the court. However our current Court Procedure is rather messy, and until that's cleaned up we should probably use A.

I agree with Chanku, although I should probably point out that we're going to have to get started with judicial reform anyway, so perhaps we should do that now, and come back to this later. I understand we're itching to do something about the situation in Lazarus, but let's cover our legislation first.

I'm in favour of giving the monarch the exclusive authority to be the court anyway, and then if he so chooses, to appoint a judge to represent him. Basically what I'm saying is that the monarch could approach a court system at his own discretion, but a system of precedent should probably play a part.

I'm actually not so much in favor of a Common Law system...I'd prefer us to take a more Civil Law approach