|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Mar 21, 2016 15:27:12 GMT -6
We are nearing a reconvening with most parties having designated MZs. Further, this does not prevent us from placing bills in the hopper or continuing to debate bills already in the hopper. I have seen a couple of additional bills placed in the hopper on other issues and I wanted to reconfirm other party's commitment to resolving this important outstanding issue as the people of Talossa were promised. It does. A Cosă that doesn't exist cannot debate. So calm your tits.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Mar 21, 2016 15:48:08 GMT -6
I will ignore your silly language and move on.
No it does not matter whether the Cosa has yet officially reconvened. Promises do matter though. Bills in the hopper can be debated and tweaked. My question stands as to where we are on the matter of a legislative response to Canungate.
I am aware of the Comprehensive Protection Bill, MPF's bill on parental consent and am not sure on any other threads but we should be prepared on Day 1 to move on this matter.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Mar 21, 2016 16:27:02 GMT -6
Oh, I agree, but day 1 might be moved down the line slightly if there is a month of recess.
My attention has been taken up with forming a government, but I want to put my proposal of a crime of 'bringing Talossa into disrepute by being convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude by a reliable foreign jurisdiction' back on the table. I'm persuaded we can't do anything about Cannon directly because ex post facto, but let's make sure it never happens again.
|
|
|
Post by Breneir Itravilatx on Mar 21, 2016 17:14:22 GMT -6
Oh, I agree, but day 1 might be moved down the line slightly if there is a month of recess. My attention has been taken up with forming a government, but I want to put my proposal of a crime of 'bringing Talossa into disrepute by being convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude by a reliable foreign jurisdiction' back on the table. I'm persuaded we can't do anything about Cannon directly because ex post facto, but let's make sure it never happens again. Noted and agreed. Thank you Dama Miestra.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 25, 2016 12:20:40 GMT -6
It's worth noting that we have a few major legal principles involved here, particularly with Miestra's suggestion. I'm undecided at the moment, and honestly unsure which way to go. This is a tough problem, not least because there are some huge issues wrapped up in it that we've never actually addressed.
Principle A: Should Talossa rely on other court systems? There have been some objections raised on the edges of this point. For example, people have pointed out that some justice systems in the world are famously unreliable or corrupt, and others have pointed out that there are different standards of "moral turpitude" (as covered in the next point). But there's also the question of the scope of our justice system and our confidence in its competence. It's patently absurd to think we can investigate and prosecute certain kinds of crimes, and indeed it would be a miscarriage of justice to try. But the issue is if, in choosing not to assert any sort of sovereignty over murder investigations, if we're ceding our moral right to then punish those crimes? In many judicial systems, it would be considered wrong to give out punishment based on findings from another court.
Principle B: Should Talossa have subjective crimes? The proposed change does not specify "moral turpitude." That means that we'd be asking our judges to decide whether or not a crime constituted moral turpitude; indeed, since criminal convictions are public record in most places, that would be the sole juridicable point of any use of this law; once evidence of a conviction elsewhere was presented, arguments would just focus on whether the crime was "moral turpitude." This would be especially hard since there's no actual definition yet provided for that idea. But even if we did provide a definition, it seems likely to end up being "something we think is really really bad or disgusting." And that's still a subjective matter. This is no small thing. What seems like common sense to you is definitely not going to be common sense for everyone, or even a majority. We'd be giving judges extremely wide authority to impose their own morality on the country, and in a country with cybercits scattered worldwide in dozens of different cultures, that's a big thing.
I think the ex post facto thing has been settled, despite the fact that the brute and bitter facts of the matter make it unpalatable (and I intend to send a letter to Iusti to ask him to renounce his citizenship, in strong terms and accompanied by a stamped envelope addressed, to MPF to make it easier). But these principles are things we need to decide, and they're big decisions -- and maybe even obstacles. Part 1 of this bill should stop this from happening with people with a prior criminal history, and I don't see any argument opposing that provision. But we need a way to deal with Iusti situations... Talossans who do reprehensible things that make us want to kick them out. The fact that the stakes are high on both sides makes this the premiere legal discussion and issue of this Cosa, and we need to hit it hard until it gets solved.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 25, 2016 12:23:27 GMT -6
Incidentally, I like a recent suggestion that prospectives under fourteen need parental permission to immigrate. I know people have opposed Part 2 of this bill -- would they accept that compromise?
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Mar 25, 2016 12:33:11 GMT -6
Prospectives under 14 can only immigrate now if they will turn 14 within the next six months. Under US law, those aged 13 and up require no parental permission to use websites. So, currently, we already comply with US law on the subject, and I don't see a reason to make our laws more strict than US law. I also don't see why we would need to make it a point to get parental permission for those who could immigrate under normal circumstances in less than a year anyway; most would probably just wait, and if they didn't, it would just cause more headache for the Interior Ministry.
Edit: Technically there is no hard immigration age, just a minimum age where the Interior Minister is required to process applications. I could support a change in law to make a hard prohibition on immigration by those under 14 by the next GE, but I don't see a need for any change to the current law which isn't a hard prohibition in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Mar 25, 2016 12:41:07 GMT -6
Technically, immigrants under 14 cannot even apply, because applications need able consent, which is something only persons legally regarded as adults can give and freely possess. Age of consent is 14 in Talossa. Under 14, you cannot sign contracts, and therefore cannot submit applications, or take an Oath. When did we deviate from that?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 25, 2016 14:30:15 GMT -6
Er, sorry, I wrote the wrong thing. Yes, you guys are right. What I meant to write was that I liked the idea of requiring prospectives under eighteen to get parental permission. I know Miestra has spoken out strongly in favor of allowing minority citizens, as traditional, and this would be a compromise between no change and my proposal of banning minority immigration: parental permission for under-age immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Mar 25, 2016 15:02:58 GMT -6
Technically, immigrants under 14 cannot even apply, because applications need able consent, which is something only persons legally regarded as adults can give and freely possess. Age of consent is 14 in Talossa. Under 14, you cannot sign contracts, and therefore cannot submit applications, or take an Oath. When did we deviate from that? There are no laws preventing anyone from applying and never have been. And we discovered that those under 14 could apply quite a bit ago, so we patched the hole by making a minimum age of 14, essentially. The reason it is 14 by next GE (a law that I wrote) is because of the quirks in our voting law; if a prospective becomes a citizen on the last day of voting, and as citizens are semi-required to vote in this country, the new citizen would be forced to choose between several different parties that s/he probably isn't familiar with. Wouldn't it be better, then, if the citizen had time to acclimate to Talossa before casting their ballot in the GE--which, by the way, they would have turned 14 before hand and been able to vote in. The idea that people under the age of consent cannot enter into contracts is a falsehood; they can enter into any contract they like, however, the contract would be legally unenforceable. This wouldn't even apply to this circumstance though, because an application for citizenship is not a contract. Er, sorry, I wrote the wrong thing. Yes, you guys are right. What I meant to write was that I liked the idea of requiring prospectives under eighteen to get parental permission. I know Miestra has spoken out strongly in favor of allowing minority citizens, as traditional, and this would be a compromise between no change and my proposal of banning minority immigration: parental permission for under-age immigrants. I still think it would be a bureaucratic nightmare, though it probably wouldn't be inOrganic, assuming that we are only requiring parental/guardian permission to submit an application, not to become a citizen. How would we go about getting the permission exactly? Or verifying that it was the parents giving the permission and not the kid forging it (like I used to forge permission slips for student trips all the time--not because my parents wouldn't let me go, but because I was, and still am, the most forgetful person ever)?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 25, 2016 15:13:10 GMT -6
It will be difficult to stop forgeries, I guess. The best way might be to directly mail permission forms to underage immigrants? Maybe? That's just off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Mar 25, 2016 15:24:57 GMT -6
Technically, immigrants under 14 cannot even apply, because applications need able consent, which is something only persons legally regarded as adults can give and freely possess. Age of consent is 14 in Talossa. Under 14, you cannot sign contracts, and therefore cannot submit applications, or take an Oath. When did we deviate from that? There are no laws preventing anyone from applying and never have been. And we discovered that those under 14 could apply quite a bit ago, so we patched the hole by making a minimum age of 14, essentially. The reason it is 14 by next GE (a law that I wrote) is because of the quirks in our voting law; if a prospective becomes a citizen on the last day of voting, and as citizens are semi-required to vote in this country, the new citizen would be forced to choose between several different parties that s/he probably isn't familiar with. Wouldn't it be better, then, if the citizen had time to acclimate to Talossa before casting their ballot in the GE--which, by the way, they would have turned 14 before hand and been able to vote in. The idea that people under the age of consent cannot enter into contracts is a falsehood; they can enter into any contract they like, however, the contract would be legally unenforceable. This wouldn't even apply to this circumstance though, because an application for citizenship is not a contract. That is essentially the same as their inability to enter into a contract. Why would it be unenforceable? Because it is argued that minors cannot see how far the obligations arising from a contract would reach; thus, they are unable to enter into a contract, therefore the contract is unenforceable, i.e. null and void. An Oath of Citizenship is a contract between the Kingdom of Talossa and the Prospective Citizen. An application for citizenship is thus also a form of contract, namely the offer to enter into a contract. I mean, minors cannot request that they be naturalised in the U.S., as well, now can they? Their parents can do it for them, but they can't go around at 12, asking to be naturalised because they're from American Samoa, or something.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Mar 25, 2016 15:41:19 GMT -6
There are no laws preventing anyone from applying and never have been. And we discovered that those under 14 could apply quite a bit ago, so we patched the hole by making a minimum age of 14, essentially. The reason it is 14 by next GE (a law that I wrote) is because of the quirks in our voting law; if a prospective becomes a citizen on the last day of voting, and as citizens are semi-required to vote in this country, the new citizen would be forced to choose between several different parties that s/he probably isn't familiar with. Wouldn't it be better, then, if the citizen had time to acclimate to Talossa before casting their ballot in the GE--which, by the way, they would have turned 14 before hand and been able to vote in. The idea that people under the age of consent cannot enter into contracts is a falsehood; they can enter into any contract they like, however, the contract would be legally unenforceable. This wouldn't even apply to this circumstance though, because an application for citizenship is not a contract. That is essentially the same as their inability to enter into a contract. Why would it be unenforceable? Because it is argued that minors cannot see how far the obligations arising from a contract would reach; thus, they are unable to enter into a contract, therefore the contract is unenforceable, i.e. null and void. An Oath of Citizenship is a contract between the Kingdom of Talossa and the Prospective Citizen. An application for citizenship is thus also a form of contract, namely the offer to enter into a contract. I mean, minors cannot request that they be naturalised in the U.S., as well, now can they? Their parents can do it for them, but they can't go around at 12, asking to be naturalised because they're from American Samoa, or something. It's not the same thing, not at all. The contract is legally unenforceable, but it is still a contract. There is no law or legal doctrine preventing the contract from being created, and there is nothing that prohibits the minor from voluntarily abiding by the terms of the contract. If you want to consider the Oath a "contract" between the Kingdom of Talossa and the Prospective Citizen, well, where is the enforceability? If the minor citizen backs out, they back out, same as ANY citizen can back out of their Oath--renunciation. There is no contract. But let's be clear, we HAVE had minors UNDER 13 apply and join before, albeit under false pretenses. But we've discovered that their citizenship is just as valid as those 14 and over, except that OrgLaw only allows those 14 and over to vote in elections.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Mar 25, 2016 16:22:21 GMT -6
That is essentially the same as their inability to enter into a contract. Why would it be unenforceable? Because it is argued that minors cannot see how far the obligations arising from a contract would reach; thus, they are unable to enter into a contract, therefore the contract is unenforceable, i.e. null and void. An Oath of Citizenship is a contract between the Kingdom of Talossa and the Prospective Citizen. An application for citizenship is thus also a form of contract, namely the offer to enter into a contract. I mean, minors cannot request that they be naturalised in the U.S., as well, now can they? Their parents can do it for them, but they can't go around at 12, asking to be naturalised because they're from American Samoa, or something. It's not the same thing, not at all. The contract is legally unenforceable, but it is still a contract. There is no law or legal doctrine preventing the contract from being created, and there is nothing that prohibits the minor from voluntarily abiding by the terms of the contract. If you want to consider the Oath a "contract" between the Kingdom of Talossa and the Prospective Citizen, well, where is the enforceability? If the minor citizen backs out, they back out, same as ANY citizen can back out of their Oath--renunciation. There is no contract. But let's be clear, we HAVE had minors UNDER 13 apply and join before, albeit under false pretenses. But we've discovered that their citizenship is just as valid as those 14 and over, except that OrgLaw only allows those 14 and over to vote in elections. I profoundly disagree. Even minor children of citizens, born when his or her parent(s) was (were) already (a) citizen(s), are not regarded citizens of the Kingdom under the Organic Law, until they are fourteen years old, and submit an essay to the Ministry of Interior, titled What Talossa Means To Me, upon which action the Interior Minister asks the SoS to register the Dandelion as a citizen, who thereby gains full voting rights. And yes, you can enter into a contract as a minor, but since it is unenforceable, the contract could also be non-existent, and it would still have the same effect legally: namely none at all. Minors are minors, and legally minors lack capacity to contract (this is an almost-universal rule, with a few minuscule exceptions) — and so, it would be detrimental to the interest of our Kingdom to allow people under the age of consent to apply for citizenship, because it is presumed that they don't know what they are doing, legally. Other than the legal implications (or non-implications, really), it would be highly immoral to deem an application of such a person valid. I, for one, would actually sue Government and Chancery, if I stumbled upon an application submitted by minors (i.e. <14), which was being processed by authorities.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Mar 25, 2016 17:16:55 GMT -6
It's not the same thing, not at all. The contract is legally unenforceable, but it is still a contract. There is no law or legal doctrine preventing the contract from being created, and there is nothing that prohibits the minor from voluntarily abiding by the terms of the contract. If you want to consider the Oath a "contract" between the Kingdom of Talossa and the Prospective Citizen, well, where is the enforceability? If the minor citizen backs out, they back out, same as ANY citizen can back out of their Oath--renunciation. There is no contract. But let's be clear, we HAVE had minors UNDER 13 apply and join before, albeit under false pretenses. But we've discovered that their citizenship is just as valid as those 14 and over, except that OrgLaw only allows those 14 and over to vote in elections. I profoundly disagree. Even minor children of citizens, born when his or her parent(s) was (were) already (a) citizen(s), are not regarded citizens of the Kingdom under the Organic Law, until they are fourteen years old, and submit an essay to the Ministry of Interior, titled What Talossa Means To Me, upon which action the Interior Minister asks the SoS to register the Dandelion as a citizen, who thereby gains full voting rights. And yes, you can enter into a contract as a minor, but since it is unenforceable, the contract could also be non-existent, and it would still have the same effect legally: namely none at all. Minors are minors, and legally minors lack capacity to contract (this is an almost-universal rule, with a few minuscule exceptions) — and so, it would be detrimental to the interest of our Kingdom to allow people under the age of consent to apply for citizenship, because it is presumed that they don't know what they are doing, legally. Other than the legal implications (or non-implications, really), it would be highly immoral to deem an application of such a person valid. I, for one, would actually sue Government and Chancery, if I stumbled upon an application submitted by minors (i.e. <14), which was being processed by authorities. A. The law allows for applications to be submitted by minors under 14. B. The law ONLY allows for applications to be submitted by minors who are going to turn 14 in six months. C. Minors can enter into contracts. Contracts are unenforceable. That doesn't mean contracts are non-existent. Minors who sign a contract to get a magazine subscription, and fail to pay, cannot be held liable for failing to pay. On the other hand, the company would be required to fulfill their end of the bargain, because it is still enforceable against the company. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. D. It is not highly immoral to grant an application of someone who might be turning 14 in a couple months, prior to the next General Election. Frankly, I think it is kind of naive to have such a high and mighty position when you would have absolutely no moral concerns over that same minor applying when they turn 14. E. Are you really implying that a 14 year old is more mature than a 13 year old? I don't see much of a difference, legally or honestly. F. The United States allows 13 year olds to use and join websites without parental consent. Obviously they aren't taking a profound moral high ground. G. You seem to keep forgetting that we have had minors under 13 become citizens, albeit under false pretenses, when we discovered that OrgLaw does NOT prohibit those under 14 from becoming citizens, and statutory law didn't prohibit those under 14 from applying. My law patched the statutory hole, which YOU VOTED FOR and were involved in discussion on in the Hopper. And most importantly, H., by the time the Cort got around to deciding your case, the prospective would turn 14 anyway. Also, we're kind of hijacking AD's bill thread with this somewhat off-topic discussion, so this will be my last post on the matter.
|
|