Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Dec 10, 2012 5:32:41 GMT -6
That looks like a good idea. Ill draft something like that.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Dec 10, 2012 6:04:09 GMT -6
so how's this:
FUTHERMORE
1. The legal definition of micronation used for 25RZ50, The Semi-Permeable Wall Act shall be: "any society of persons (whether claiming territorial sovereignty or not) that
a. claims a governmental organization and citizenry and
b. is not a member of the United Nations and
c. is not a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization and
d. is not officially recognised by the Kingdom of Talossa.”
2. All members of the Ziu, the Cabinet, the Uppermost Court, the
Magistrate's Court, the Chancery or the Royal Treasury and the Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar must report the following information to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
a) All micronations of which he/she is a member.
b) All national public offices he/she holds in these micronations.
3. No person can be appointed to any of these offices before he has submitted this information.
4. If the appointment to any of these offices requires a vote by any house of the Ziu, the candidate must provide the required information before the vote takes place. Otherwise, the appointment will be invalid.
5. Candidates for the position of Senator can not receive votes in the election for Senator untill they have provided the required information.
6. Every person holding any of the offices named in point 2 of this act who join a micronation
or get appointed to a national public office in a micronation during their time in office must provide the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with this information within 15 days of the event.
7. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for maintaining a public list of all the information mentioned in points 2 to 6 of this act.
8. It is a criminal act for anyone holding an office mentioned in point 2 of this act to provide false information about his/her micronational involvement. The penalty for such a crime may, depending on the seriousness of the mistake be impeachment from any office mentioned in point 2.
note 1: this still doesnt say anything about the Semi-Permeable wall act or. This may be covered in another act, like the one citizen Schiva proposed.
note 2: This is a very rough draft with probably lots of mistakes. Criticism and suggestions are more than welcome. (In any case, Alex will have to approve of it)
|
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 10, 2012 7:25:09 GMT -6
2. All members of the Ziu, the Cabinet, the Uppermost Court, the Magistrate's Court, the Chancery or the Royal Treasury and the Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar must report the following information to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: a) All micronations of which he/she is a member. b) All national public offices he/she holds in these micronations. ... 8. It is a criminal act for anyone holding an office mentioned in point 2 of this act to provide false information about his/her micronational involvement. The penalty for such a crime may, depending on the seriousness of the mistake be impeachment from any office mentioned in point 2. Sounds like a witch hunt to me. Do you think I would really disclose such information freely being either in the Ziu or in some position within Government? Again, it brings me back to the "legalize it all or keep it banned" thing; Why would I so easily and openly confess to my political opponents about my past? What if today, I was in the Government, and I did something that just angered opponents of mine to no end, and after the next General Election, my party becomes the minority. Now my angered opponents have an avenue to literally enact revenge by blacklisting the one country I belong to and no one else does. That would easily be considered a discriminatory act against me personally. At least when you ban everything, or legalize everything, it rules out the possibility of anyone being discriminated against on a single level. (In fact, I would go as far as to say this would be inOrganic, as it leaves open the possibility for the de-facto censoring of Freedom of Opinion and Freedom of Expression.) I would also point out that any sort of list making would only serve as a tool for politicians who wish to get rid of all "traitors" in the future. How about raising the requirements for nations to be blacklisted? It is worth looking at; do you have a specific proposal? Look, either tear down the wall completely, or leave it up. Well, okay then. I propose MY OWN bill, which I would like to be put on the same Clark as the "One More Step" bill... THE FINAL STEP TOWARDS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM ACT BE IT ENACTED THAT: 1. 25RZ50, The Semi-Permeable Wall, is hereby repealed. 2. The Government of Talossa shall not engage in any treaty, agreement or diplomatic relations with any other nation or nation-like entity except where authorised to by law. This is a great idea if we want to pursue complete legalization; I would suggest an added section that would prevent prosecution against current Talossan citizens if the law was to be rebuilt--if I joined a micronation after the wall was torn down, and it was rebuilt in a couple years, I would be subject to (although not personally) "deportation" if I didn't relinquish my citizenship in that other country. It's sort of like amnesty, I suppose, for citizens wishing to exercise this new freedom. Well, true, which is why, Mr General Secretary, we should TEAR DOWN THIS WALL. I just knew someone would say this eventually, but never thought I would hear it from you. Nice one. ;D |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Dec 10, 2012 8:07:54 GMT -6
2. All members of the Ziu, the Cabinet, the Uppermost Court, the Magistrate's Court, the Chancery or the Royal Treasury and the Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar must report the following information to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: a) All micronations of which he/she is a member. b) All national public offices he/she holds in these micronations. ... 8. It is a criminal act for anyone holding an office mentioned in point 2 of this act to provide false information about his/her micronational involvement. The penalty for such a crime may, depending on the seriousness of the mistake be impeachment from any office mentioned in point 2. Sounds like a witch hunt to me. Do you think I would really disclose such information freely being either in the Ziu or in some position within Government? Again, it brings me back to the "legalize it all or keep it banned" thing; Why would I so easily and openly confess to my political opponents about my past? What if today, I was in the Government, and I did something that just angered opponents of mine to no end, and after the next General Election, my party becomes the minority. Now my angered opponents have an avenue to literally enact revenge by blacklisting the one country I belong to and no one else does. That would easily be considered a discriminatory act against me personally. At least when you ban everything, or legalize everything, it rules out the possibility of anyone being discriminated against on a single level. (In fact, I would go as far as to say this would be inOrganic, as it leaves open the possibility for the de-facto censoring of Freedom of Opinion and Freedom of Expression.) I would also point out that any sort of list making would only serve as a tool for politicians who wish to get rid of all "traitors" in the future. Do you really think Talossans who want to join a micronation rather have it banned completely than just having to say so, cause I dont think your party members want to go any further than this. (Note that in this example the blacklist thing would be removed) Well the maximum would be a majority in both houses of the ziu, since more than that can be overruled by new legislation anyway. How about 2/3rds in either house or a majority in both houses for adding and a majority in both houses for removing? (that would of course only make sense for the original proposal not the one based on Crestis idea.) This is a great idea if we want to pursue complete legalization; I would suggest an added section that would prevent prosecution against current Talossan citizens if the law was to be rebuilt--if I joined a micronation after the wall was torn down, and it was rebuilt in a couple years, I would be subject to (although not personally) "deportation" if I didn't relinquish my citizenship in that other country. It's sort of like amnesty, I suppose, for citizens wishing to exercise this new freedom. [/quote] It certainly is a great idea, but as has been said before, it doesnt affect the ban on dual citizenship, which isnt part of 25RZ50. Its another issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 10, 2012 11:02:14 GMT -6
Do you really think Talossans who want to join a micronation rather have it banned completely than just having to say so, cause I dont think your party members want to go any further than this. (Note that in this example the blacklist thing would be removed) If it is legal then why do we need to report it? (I mean, voluntarily saying "Hey, I'm also a citizen of Eastern Montana." is one thing--it is quite another to be required to disclose it.) If you were going to continue with the blacklist idea, this would be much more favorable; perhaps add some time limitation (like the blacklist must be renewed every Cosa or election or something). Of course, my comments do not in anyway mean that I personally am favorable to a blacklist in the slightest. |
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401 
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Dec 10, 2012 14:50:58 GMT -6
First, my personal opinion: if there is a wall, tear it down.Second, some observations:
1) the definition of "micronation" must be tested against France (which is clearly not a micronation), Penguinea (which is, or was), and Taiwan, Vatican City, South Sudan and Palestine. You might like to include Switzerland, Guernsey, The Isle of Mann, Kingston upon Hull and Sealand in that list too - as each of these could (under the above definition in this proposed act) possibly fall in to the category of "micronation"
2) I was born in Ireland, of Irish parents - so clearly I am Irish, and proud of that fact. I have, however, lived very nearly all of my life in England, which is where I was educated, where I have worked and paid my taxes, where I vote and where I live. And I am proud of that fact too. The laws of England have no jurisdiction over the laws of Ireland, and cannot prevent Ireland from claiming me as their citizen - nor should they. So can the laws of Talosssa do this? That is, can the laws of Talossa - once I am a citizen of this kingdom - claim jurisdiction over the laws of some other sovereign state? Of course, Talossan citizenship is gift from the kingdom bestowed upon the free choice of the applicant, but...
3) ... consider the case of a Dandelion. That person may well be a citizen for life: he or she was blessedly born into Talossan citizenship. He or she did not choose, but was born into it. Are we ever going to agree to Talossan laws that limit the free rights of that Talossan citizen to move house and change nationality (for example, moving to Taiwan, or becoming The Pope's private secretary, or taking up residence in South Sudan)?
4) If the SPW law(s) in question are so repugnant-to-some-but-wanted-by-others, why do we not repeal them in toto, and then present for adoption separate laws - one for each clause of the disputed act(s)? Then we can all be miserable together.  (Looking at the laws, I suspect that in reality we may be arguing about next to nothing.)No, my friends and fellow citizens - If there is a wall, tear it down completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on Dec 10, 2012 15:21:13 GMT -6
Under the current law I could be King of the Netherlands without any problem. As far as unrecognised 'bug nations' are concerned, we dont recognize them anyway. Let them choose for themselves. Not everything I disagree with should be forbidden. But if you were the King of the Netherlands, could you be a Senator in the USA, the President of Mexico, a Baron in Luxembourg, a MP in the British Parliament, Mayor of Singapore , and a City Councillor in Rome? No, but if you were Queen of the Netherlands you could be Count of Dietz, Count of Katzenelnbogen, Count of Spiegelberg, count of Vianden, Vicount of Antwerp, Baron of Diest, Baron of Herstal, Baron of Warneton, Baron of Beilstein, Baron of Arlay, Baron of Nozeroy, Lord of Bütgenbach, Lord of Sankt Vith, Lord of Turnhout, Lord of Besançon, Lord of Montfort, and Lord of Daasburg. Or you could be the Queen of the United Kingdom and still get to be Queen of 15 other soverign states as well. She's got Hypothetical-Mick by 1. Edited because Eðo Grischun is right and I know it. Though I mean, she'd still be the queen of England in a roundabout way, right? Good ol' King John's the king here in Benito. We don't go around calling him the King of Benito, but he is, sort of, right? We just don't call him that cause there's no precedent for it. There's precedent in England. My many-great grandpappy was King o' England and deep down ol' cousin Elizabeth is queen of England, even it's only when you follow the flowchart down a few rungs. |
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on Dec 10, 2012 15:23:10 GMT -6
Why would I so easily and openly confess to my political opponents about my past? Integrity? |
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Dec 10, 2012 16:23:25 GMT -6
Or you could be the Queen of England ... There is no such person or office as the Queen of England. England is a country but is not a sovereign state (neither are Scotland or Wales (which with England make up the Island of Great Britain) or Northern Ireland (which together with Great Britain and some other smaller islands make up the UK)) - Pet peeve (sorry). You are nearly right though as she is, indeed, Queen of 16 sovereign states. The Queen of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms  is Queen Regent of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and also Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Kitts and Nevis. She is also the head of the Commonwealth of Nation which has 54 members! Quite impressive really. |
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Dec 10, 2012 18:43:54 GMT -6
Or you could be the Queen of England ... There is no such person or office as the Queen of England. Speaker 1: "Incorrect. There is no such person, because Francis II, King of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland, has no wife. However, there obviously is such an office, because if he married, there would be one." Speaker 2: "Also incorrect. He's disbarred because Maria Beatrice of Savoy's marriage was illegal under both English and Scottish law, despite the papal dispensation. Thus there is both such an office and person, Queen Alice, Queen of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland." |
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 10, 2012 19:02:35 GMT -6
Why would I so easily and openly confess to my political opponents about my past? Integrity? Me? Integrity? ;D In all seriousness, there is a difference in being required to disclose and disclosing voluntarily, the latter being a true sign of integrity. |
|
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 Dec 10, 2012 19:05:02 GMT -6
Speaker 1: "Incorrect. There is no such person, because Francis II, King of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland, has no wife. I thought we dealt with you guys in 1745. I for one welcome our new Hanoverian overlords. |
|
|
|
Post by Vitxalmour Conductour on Dec 10, 2012 19:35:28 GMT -6
Or you could be the Queen of England ... There is no such person or office as the Queen of England. England is a country but is not a sovereign state (neither are Scotland or Wales (which with England make up the Island of Great Britain) or Northern Ireland (which together with Great Britain and some other smaller islands make up the UK)) - Pet peeve (sorry). You are nearly right though as she is, indeed, Queen of 16 sovereign states. The Queen of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms is Queen Regent of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and also Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Kitts and Nevis. She is also the head of the Commonwealth of Nation which has 54 members! Quite impressive really. Yeah, I know, but when I realized my mistake I was already downstairs. Sorry. |
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Dec 10, 2012 19:36:13 GMT -6
There is no such person or office as the Queen of England. Speaker 1: "Incorrect. There is no such person, because Francis II, King of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland, has no wife. However, there obviously is such an office, because if he married, there would be one." Speaker 2: "Also incorrect. He's disbarred because Maria Beatrice of Savoy's marriage was illegal under both English and Scottish law, despite the papal dispensation. Thus there is both such an office and person, Queen Alice, Queen of England, France, Scotland, and Ireland." ...assuming you consider the various Jacobite pretenders to be valid... |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 10, 2012 20:06:14 GMT -6
4. If the appointment to any of these offices requires a vote by any house of the Ziu, the candidate must provide the required information before the vote takes place. Otherwise, the appointment will be invalid. 5. Candidates for the position of Senator can not receive votes in the election for Senator untill they have provided the required information. There may be an organic problem with these paragraphs. A statute can create a criminal offense that creates the possibility of impeachment from an organic office, but generally can't add new requirements to hold the office. If it is legal then why do we need to report it? It is legal to own Boeing stock in the US, but you'll find yourself in big trouble if you get yourself appointed as a procurement official responsible for an Air Force tanker jet contract without reporting that financial interest. It is legal to be a dual citizen, but if you want a job with, say, the State Department or the CIA, they'll certainly want to know about it. And while no one can force you to sell the stock or renounce the non-US citizenship, failing to do so could affect your prospects of receiving certain positions of public trust. Because such relationships can create the possibility of a conflict of interest that could affect the performance of your official duties, so the public has a right to expect disclosure of such relationships prior to entrusting you with governmental authority. |
|
is Queen Regent of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and also Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Kitts and Nevis. She is also the head of the Commonwealth of Nation which has 54 members!
