«12. . .886887888889890891892. . .2,1812,182»
Your Nation and any member nation is, of course, free to pursue any proposed legislation with The Vocals, and further, have it taken up by the Legislature.
Debates and disagreements are natural to this process and, in fact, encouraged
However, I implore all sides to keep the debate civil and rational.
The Capitalist Paradise Rights, Laws, and Constitution and process thereof matter not to the NS Moderators.
Northern Borland
Arbiter General
Capitalist Producers knows full well that keeping it respectful is poorly defined in the constitution. He is fully aware that he can be as sarcastic and insulting to you all as he wants provided that he is indirect about it and thus a grey area.
He seems to think he is some kind of voice for freedom and capitalism. He is using a loophole to bully you guys. This is how he wins debates. No wonder he wants to maintain his ability to legislatw from the bench.
Well I say bring it on tough guy, it's about time you took on someone your own size.
I'M BACK! Whats new? Why isn't NS++ working? Why isn't my government omnipresent anymore? Why do tunnel snakes rule?
For clarification, I was absent for a couple months.
ROFL!!! This guy needs to switch to decaf.
Free speech trumps all. Whenever even remotely possible I will always rule in favor of free speech. That is my philosophy and the one of the things I was very clear about when I ran for this office. Heck, I wouldn't even shut you up. Do you have a problem with that?
Did I leave you with that impression? I always thought it was because I produce facts and/or figures with sources to back my argument. (Keep reading, you're about to see how that works.)
You still aren't catching on here. May I ask if you read your own proposal and read my objections to it?
Let me direct you to the language you say you wrote to add to our constitution:
Request and mandate an amendment of laws considered:
- Poorly defined: containing terms that can be interpreted in more than one way
- Containing grey areas: the legislation can be used in ways contrary to its stated intention
With the words "request and mandate" you give the court the power to, upon its own volition, declare any word, phrase, paragraph or section either in a gray area or poorly defined. Upon doing so that law would null and void until passed again. This is what happens when a court declares a law outside the bounds of the constitution. You are setting those limits with those words.
As it is now the court may not officially examine and/or rule on any law on the books unless someone brings suit challenging the constitutionality of that law.
If your proposal passes, the court will be free to legislate from the bench on a whim by simply slapping one of your labels on something one of us doesn't like. That something would be language voted on and passed by the nations of this region.
But don't take my word for it, show us where my analysis fails.
Just so we are all clear, I am going to once again quote the rest of the language you said you wrote. Read along with me so we are all on the same page.
Repeal any legislation which is considered:
- Unenforceable: Government cannot practically compel Nations to abide
- Unlawful: not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by constitutional law
- Contrary law(s): legislation conflicts with previously enacted laws
-and-
Any resident of Capitalist Paradise may submit a case to the Supreme Court to challenge previously enacted legislation.
All of this is redundant. The court already has the power to do all these things. The legal residents of this region are already free to bring suit.
But again, don't take my word for it. Feel free to show us anything that contradicts this.
Speaking of showing us things, on this very RMB you made a lot of high sounding claims about how your proposal will require the court hear cases and explain rulings. Can you show me where in all those words you said you wrote (and presumably read) the language exists that lives up to that claim? As many times as I read that, I'm just not seeing it.
About that load of dead fish about being corrupt... ROFL!!! What on earth led you to believe that anything on Nation States is worth being corrupt over?
How am I doing so far?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAMP OUT LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH - VOTE AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT PROPOSAL!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Cybernomix suppressed by a moderator.
If anyone is interested in participating in a little NationStates centered side project of mine, telegram me. I would like to have a minimum of ten nations to be a part of a think tank and an initial trial run of the project.
I don't have a lot of time this morning, so I am going to keep this short.
Yes. I read that. You are making two assumptions here that are not in your proposal. There is nothing automatic about correcting and bringing the deleted portion up for another vote, let alone it passing again. The second assumption you are making is that the court will not simply use one of your labels to delete the replacement again.
Those definitions are not carried in the language you are adding to the constitution. I am basing my objections solely on the language the court will weigh future cases on should your proposal pass.
At this point, I think that is a good idea. I look forward to reading the complaint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAMP OUT LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH - VOTE AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT PROPOSAL!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Request and mandate an amendment of laws considered..."
Mandate: a command to act in a particular way
If it's a law, and the law must be followed, then it follows that it will be done. Logic 101.
If they do not, then they have violated the law, then I haul them to court (so it's a binding incentive). Game Theory 101.
So there is no doubt that it will be corrected and up for another vote.
---
Regarding whether the bill not passing again.
By writing and proposing a law that fits the criteria for repeal or amendment mandate, you are agreeing to assume the cost of having to rewrite it, as well as the risk of it not passing again.
You ought to pay the price of bad law.
You ought to reap the rewards of a good law.
This may not be a market, but there certainly is a price signal here.
If you remove the price signal, you remove the incentive to write good law, and remove the disincentive of writing a bad one. Game Theory 101.
As you can see, we already have the incentive to do write good laws with my proposal. We don't need - and would function better without - a guarantee.
I am assuming that the court WILL use my labels to repeal - or mandate amendement of - the replacement if it fits the criteria as many times as it takes. You are the one making the assumption that it is impossible not to write unenforceable, unlawful, conflicting laws, poorly defined, and laws containing grey areas.
1. We both know that is an outright lie, because you have already admitted that such laws get repealed ANYWAYS.
2. Really dude? You are telling me that you are unable to write a law that is enforceable, lawful, well-defined, and void of grey areas?
You have just set the bar bafflingly low there buddy. Those ought to be the MINIMUM criteria of any law. If you can't produce something that fits the very basics, I don't know what qualifies you to be a Justice. Holy cow.
The court may not interpret the law. It may only apply it, as written. Otherwise, it is legislating from the bench (sound familiar?)
I love this.
When it comes to theory, job-seeking, business enterprise, Capitalist Producers says there ought to be no guarantees and we know full well the risks when we engage in something.
But when it comes to himself, he wants a guarantee. A safety net, to protect him from the cost of having to rewrite nonsensical proposals.
Great! Now we have welfare for government officials! Nice!
Way to use your position of power for personal gain big guy!
In my opinion, this whole thing is futile. A government's job is to serve the people not to exploit them. Look at China and the Dang theory, Vietnam and the Doi Moi, America and Reganomics. When Capitalism takes root a nation prospers, when ditatorship takes root a nation rots. Even Karl Marx sayed that capitalism is nessisary to achieve socialism. A nation should be of the people, by the people, and for the People.
Capitalist Producers, LadyFasterkittens, and Shekalstan
Post self-deleted by Cafincy.
One more vote counter is still needed!
Is this a bad time to say hello?! LOL
Whew... times have changed. Hello again everyone!
No not at all, Welcome ^.^
Hemp fabric is now available for your new custom flag!
Case entitled Cybernomix vs Capitalist Producers accusing Capitalist Producers of corruption has officially begun.
A message from King Miguel:
Dear fellow Capitalist Paradise nations, I, the great King Miguel of A Nova Inquisicao (The New Inquisition), I am privileged and honoured to be a part of this great region and I hope to contribute to this wonderful society in the future.
Regards,
King Miguel
I am currently working an a mechanism to have market for private courts to break up the monopoly of the court.
Sidenote: I notice that our militia also has a monopoly, so I will look into that too.
My favourite bit of a James Bond film is from a Roger Moore film - but Roger Moore is not in it.
It is from the start of "Octopussy" (if that is the correct spelling) - it is an oddly realistic scene, including the death of the agent.
One can not take the sort of punishment that "Bond" takes and just walk away - at least with the agent at the start of "Octopussy" that is made clear.
In business a reputation for honesty is important - which is why private "Law Merchant" evolved, in theory a private court could not force anything on you (you had to agree), but if you ignored their judgements your name was mud - people would not trade with you in future.
Ah yes, the Discipline of Constant Dealings.
Reputation means squat for a one-time purchase, but for continuous payments, it is actually perfectly binding (insurance).
«12. . .886887888889890891892. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement
