Confederation of Nations RMB

WA Delegate: The Federal Republic of Whestion (elected 201 days ago)

Founder: The Sovereign Republic of Defero Populus

BoardActivity History Admin

World Factbook Entry

Welcome to The Confederation of Nations, open to anyone who wants to join.


Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
- Thomas Jefferson


Our extension to make NationStates a better experience
NationStates++

Our advanced country information system
LinkNSTracker

Some additional tools
LinkArch-Shaped Parliament Diagrams Maker
LinkFlag Designer
LinkRandom Name Generator


Embassies: The Allied Republics, the Greater German Reich, England, New Warsaw Pact, Atlantis, International Western Union, World Alliance, New Republica, Central Pacific Empire, Laissez Faireholm, Commonwealth of Liberty, Eastern Roman Empire, The Republic Nations, Union of Free Nations, Commonwealth of Free Nations, Global Right Alliance, and 6 others.Alternate History World, Sunalaya, New York, The Darwinish Coalition, The United World of Battlefronts, and Avadam Inn.

The embassy with New Republica is being withdrawn. Closure expected in 2 days 21 hours.

Tags: Democratic, National Sovereigntist, Social, Casual, Neutral, Free Trade, Independent, Featured, Role Player, Medium, Regional Government, Serious, and 1 other.World Assembly.

Regional Power: High

Confederation of Nations contains 24 nations, the 514th most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Largest Publishing Industry in Confederation of Nations

As a region, Confederation of Nations is ranked 235th in the world for Largest Publishing Industry.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Federal Republic of WhestionWA MemberCivil Rights Lovefest“Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito”
2.The Republic of N-AmericaWA MemberNew York Times Democracy“Quod libertas a tyrannis- and at any cost”
3.The Democratic Republic of SyrilliaWA MemberCivil Rights Lovefest“Ex dolore prosperum”
4.The Kingdom of FoundatisWA MemberLeft-wing Utopia“Etiamsi omnes, ego non”
5.The Constitutional Monarchy of TilsitsinInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Safe, Strong, United.”
6.The Free Country of United Confederation of statesWA MemberLiberal Democratic Socialists“As a nation of free people, we will live forever”
7.The Radical Tacoman Republic of Tacoma 2WA MemberCapitalist Paradise“Republikanische ideale müssen mit Schwertern gepflanzt ”
8.The Funding LARGE Corporations of FormerAwesomenessCapitalist Paradise“LARGE Corporations are the best!!”
9.The Holy German Confedracy of Germany 67Capitalist Paradise“Hi, Billy Mays here with a special tv offer! Buy Wii's!”
10.The Federation of DarrowScandinavian Liberal Paradise“Necessary Evil for the Greater Good”
Page:  «  1  2  3  »

Regional Happenings

More...

Confederation of Nations Regional Message Board

The United Kingdom of Vazdaria wrote:Bradys cheating on me????


He told me it was over between you two?!

Might I ask why I'm still Law and Order Minister? Better yet, can I still work to have stuff repealed?

The Commonwealth of Bearlong wrote:He told me it was over between you two?!

Might I ask why I'm still Law and Order Minister? Better yet, can I still work to have stuff repealed?

Ever since Syrillia struck down CR #21 nobody has bothered to edit the factbooks, if that means anything.

The Commonwealth of Bearlong wrote:It took me several tries to understand what you were saying because it was said so incoherently. Not to say that I don't expect that from you of all people, Defero. My comments are bolded, and I think it would do you a great lot of good to actually learn what the job of the Supreme Court actually is in relation to the Legislature and the Executive. Oh, and do research on logical fallacies, too. Construct a real argument.


Let me explain it slowly then.

First, if I didn't get the rights then you are treating people unequally.

Second, did you poll all Americans by having them going to the ballot box and deciding. You probably used the same polls that said Prop 8 was going to fail.

Third, Everyone is affected by this, it is a figment of your imagination if you think it doesn't. People like me, is that suppose to insinuate something?

Fourth, it is not an opinion it is a fact. The state has no reason to be involved in marriage now.

Fifth, this is not a variation of interracial marriage for many reasons. First, race was never a universal part in marriage and was something later added to marriage laws. Second, the relationship in the Loving case was actually criminalize unlike this case. Third, the law explicitly mentions race and blocks white from marrying non-white, so the law didn't even apply equally. Further on the Polygamy issue "Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage."

Sixth, the law did treat all people equally regardless of sexual orientation.

Seventh, this was taken from the oral arguments Verrilli was on the side favoring same-sex marriage.

"Justice Samuel Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.: You know, I -- I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue. I -- I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is -- it is going to be an issue."

You can't brush it off so easily saying it won't be an issue, because it will.

Eighth, "When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification." Why should the meaning of something change. This was an agreement between the government and the governed unilaterally changing the deal should be criminal.

Ninth, if the court ruled the other way it would have gone back to the people to decide. Can you give one example of when I did not have an issue with the people being overruled when it was in my favor?

Tenth, in the states that did not have same-sex marriage their marriage laws were changed to something fundamentally different.

Eleventh, the supreme court is to "neither force nor will but merely judgment" That is from the federalist papers, they knew what they were talking about when it comes to the constitution. This forces same-sex marriage on the states. They made a new law for many states.

I do understand that some people might have trouble with higher concepts, but I do feel like even those should be understood. Also, I like how you say I made a logical fallacy, but didn't say where.

My arguments are clear

1. The 14th amendment was never intended to do this, so it should not be twisted in making that way.
2. This case is fundamentally different than other marriage cases or gay rights cases because it coerces the state into having a right to a state benefit instead of limiting the state, and the constitution was never meant to do that.
3. The court should not be making laws from the court room, but should be constitutionally reserved to the legislature.

We should play an eu4 game soon.

Defero Populus

The Sovereign Republic of Defero Populus wrote:Fourth, it is not an opinion it is a fact. The state has no reason to be involved in marriage now.


I'm against state or federal government recognition of marriage. I'm in favor of a contractual arrangement, thus allowing any range of marriage possibilities between two (or more!) consenting adults. But what was the reason for state involvement in the first place? To encourage families and the privatization of childcare? To privatize care for the elderly? To better facilitate the transfer of property after death? In recent decades, to protect both spouses in the event of death or divorce? Surely all of these incentives remain firmly in place. The states still have powerful incentives to stay involved in marriage.

The Sovereign Republic of Defero Populus wrote:Fifth, this is not a variation of interracial marriage for many reasons. First, race was never a universal part in marriage and was something later added to marriage laws. Second, the relationship in the Loving case was actually criminalize unlike this case. Third, the law explicitly mentions race and blocks white from marrying non-white, so the law didn't even apply equally. Further on the Polygamy issue "Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective �two� in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority�s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage."


I haven't yet had a chance to read the opinion, but if that quote is from the dissent, I imagine that it will be invoked within the coming years when the polygamists come out to claim their constitutional rights. I'm all for it, as I've said repeatedly. Loving stands not only for the proposition that marriage is a substantive due process right, but also that barriers to marriage must hold against strict scrutiny. Such barriers must be closely tailored to address an important government interest. It's just difficult for me to see what overriding government interest is served in preventing the marriage of homosexuals. Stop the drain on government benefits? Then why allow marriage at all, like you said. Ensure children are raised in a healthy environment? Homosexuality has nothing to do with that, scientifically or socially. Why not just limit marriage to couples that make a certain income if that's the case? There's no government interest, and even if you can conjure one up, there's no close tailoring.

The Sovereign Republic of Defero Populus wrote:Sixth, the law did treat all people equally regardless of sexual orientation.


See above. The fact that it fell equally on everyone is just one factor, not enough to survive strict scrutiny.

The Sovereign Republic of Defero Populus wrote:1. The 14th amendment was never intended to do this, so it should not be twisted in making that way.

I agree to an extent, but due process demands the protection of people over governments. I will happily throw away the rights of the states to protect the people within them, but generally I do prefer action at the state level. Hopefully we can agree that the Commerce Clause jurisprudence needs to be heavily scaled back.

The Sovereign Republic of Defero Populus wrote:2. This case is fundamentally different than other marriage cases or gay rights cases because it coerces the state into having a right to a state benefit instead of limiting the state, and the constitution was never meant to do that.

States can't interfere with the right to marry. Years ago that meant allowing interracial couples to marry. Now it means allowing gays to marry. Soon it will mean allowing polygamists to marry. Would I have sided with the majority in the Loving case? Likely not, despite the fact that I am in an interracial relationship. But now that the court has gone that way, it has to go all the way.

The Sovereign Republic of Defero Populus wrote:3. The court should not be making laws from the court room, but should be constitutionally reserved to the legislature.

The court found a right to exist, it did not make new law. If you had asked me, I would've claimed that the constitution protected individuals equally all along. You would have denied that was the case. The Supreme Court has acted as the referee and decided it.

I also want to draw attention to Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture. A taking is a taking. Good call on that Supreme Court.

Hopefully we can put the marriage stuff behind us and focus on whatever controversial issue the media decides we should focus on. Oh, hey, how about flags?!

But seriously. Rejoice. Fallout 4 is closer each day.

Raindrop Valley International News: 30 June 2015

Good evening and welcome to RIN, Raindrop Valley International News.

I’m Shannon Cole.

In The Holy Empire of Raindrop Valley, the Italian football team has caused a football frency in the Valley, with the Azzuri playing Raindrop Valley tonight at Raindrop Stadium. Tonight’s event has been sold out for weeks, as fans from across the world will descent on the stadium to see Vallian stars Hamish Laudy and young gun striker, Frederik McNally.

In Central Pacific Empire, the election period has become a fierce Conservative versus Progressive battle, with the two parties presenting Prime Ministerial candidates, The Confederacy of New Nationale Einheit facing up against The Federal Republic of Latin and Central America. The election has seen the Progressives attack the Conservatives in a smear campaign, whilst the Conservatives have maintained their commitment to a strong, unified region. “Conservatives have explained our agenda as one that would put our government back on the side of all citizens of this region, but we have not resorted to reckless attacks” said The Confederacy of New Nationale Einheit.

In the Coalition of Catholic States, The Grand Duchy of San Juan de Sinka has been the latest candidate to come forward to become Chancellor of the region. The Grand Duchy of San Juan de Sinka has acknowledged the importance and difficulty in obtaining the role, however has presented his candidacy to the founder.

Moving across to our reporters at The Commonwealth of Crowns, The United Kingdom of Lentheric, former Prime Minister of the Central Pacific Empire has returned from a slumber in the region, causing concern amongst the CPE that the current Prime Minister, The United Kingdom of Lentheric2 may take a step back from his regional role in the region.

In Confederation of nations, CR #21, the law which was passed to silence The Allied States of RIN Raindrop Valley International News, which was also overruled by the Supreme Court of the region, remains on the government’s legislative trail. The Republic of N-America has been the only lobbyist to see this updated, causing embarrassment and calling into question the integrity of the regional government.

In The Commonwealth of Kings, The Islamic Republic of SaudiPakistan has officially become the Prime Minister after the King, The Capital Island of Lalucia made his speech appointing the new PM. “I have no doubt that under his leadership, the region will awaken from its slumber and activity as well as population will increase.”, said the King. The Islamic Republic of SaudiPakistan is now seeking interest for the role of Foreign Affairs Minister.

RIN: News from The Holy Empire of Raindrop Valley to the world.

Whenever I bring up CR #21 it's like i'm talking to myself.

It's a bad sign when we're down to 24 members..

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics