NationStates Jolt Archive

You can read the article at:

http://www.angelfire.com/un/update

and then post your opinion below!

---------------------------------------

Kinda odd how the Civil Rights Lovefest people and the National Jurisdiction people are going to team up against this one.... :shock:

We tend to agree with the thoughts of the article written. We would like our courts to determine what is frivoulous and what isn't and I'm sure they can use their own common sense

Darren Maskell
UN Ambassador for the Republic of WNA

I agree with your choice to reject this proposal. We need to get the word out more though. People need to know that this is not only a misleading proposal, it also has no place in the UN!

Peace,
Stephanie.

I just posted about this in another thread. While it would be a good thing to pass if it were written correctly, it isn't...I wouldn't want to see it passed myself. There are too many frivolous lawsuits that should never make it to court, but this law is written so that people would think they are voting one way, when actually they are voting another altogether.

I just posted about this in another thread. While it would be a good thing to pass if it were written correctly, it isn't...I wouldn't want to see it passed myself. There are too many frivolous lawsuits that should never make it to court, but this law is written so that people would think they are voting one way, when actually they are voting another altogether.

I agree with you.but even more so, this doesn't belong in the UN. It's not an international issue, it is a national one.

Peace,
Stephanie.

I agree with you.but even more so, this doesn't belong in the UN. It's not an international issue, it is a national one.

Peace,
Stephanie.

God lord, you've finally figured out that the UN ought not to be dealing with purely internal matters?

I agree with you.but even more so, this doesn't belong in the UN. It's not an international issue, it is a national one.

Peace,
Stephanie.

God lord, you've finally figured out that the UN ought not to be dealing with purely internal matters?

I've known all along.. you just didn't want to hear what I was saying ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.

I, for one, am against it. True there is a trend for people to sue big business due to their own stupidity. BUT without this oppurtunity the money would stay with the corporations, at the end of the day it comes down to a distribution of cash issue. And I'd rather see an idiot millionaire, someone who'd squander the money in the worst case scenario (helping small businesses) and in the best, spreading it around the community, to charity, and generally giving the underdog a break.

I, for one, am against it. True there is a trend for people to sue big business due to their own stupidity. BUT without this oppurtunity the money would stay with the corporations, at the end of the day it comes down to a distribution of cash issue. And I'd rather see an idiot millionaire, someone who'd squander the money in the worst case scenario (helping small businesses) and in the best, spreading it around the community, to charity, and generally giving the underdog a break.

So, as I understand you, you see "stupid" lawsuits as a sort of class-warfare Robin Hood type action? I would say that it is hardly true.

People should gain wealth, especially large amounts of it at once, because of hard work, not because they managed to cut their finger off with a table knife that didn't have a warning label.

Note: I am ALSO against this proposal, but because it infringes on my nation's right to determine what lawsuits have merit and what ones don't.

I, for one, am against it. True there is a trend for people to sue big business due to their own stupidity. BUT without this oppurtunity the money would stay with the corporations, at the end of the day it comes down to a distribution of cash issue. And I'd rather see an idiot millionaire, someone who'd squander the money in the worst case scenario (helping small businesses) and in the best, spreading it around the community, to charity, and generally giving the underdog a break.

So, as I understand you, you see "stupid" lawsuits as a sort of class-warfare Robin Hood type action? I would say that it is hardly true.

People should gain wealth, especially large amounts of it at once, because of hard work, not because they managed to cut their finger off with a table knife that didn't have a warning label.

Note: I am ALSO against this proposal, but because it infringes on my nation's right to determine what lawsuits have merit and what ones don't.

Which is why we also reject the resolution

The government of Argana agrees with our estemeed members here. We have noted our objection to this resolution.

Whilst we understand the overall moral effect the member of Fantasan is trying to do, surely it is better for nations to decide these matters on their own. Secondly, if his legal system is devoid of common sense, surely an overall is needed.

The point is simply this, train lawyers and judges correctly, and common sense will prevail. If Fantasan really wants to stops this type of legal misuse, cap the amount Law firms can charge. They are the real winners afterall.

The Kingdom of Argana

I agree with you.but even more so, this doesn't belong in the UN. It's not an international issue, it is a national one.

Peace,
Stephanie.

God lord, you've finally figured out that the UN ought not to be dealing with purely internal matters?

I've known all along.. you just didn't want to hear what I was saying ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.

That's interesting...please correct me if I am wrong but I recall Stephistan voting in favor of "free education"... It is pretty clear that the "free education" proposal would be a national issue but that didn't seem to stop you on that proposal.

I urge all nations to vote against this resolution. It will give criminals another backdoor out of the crimes they committ.

Steven,
President of Altum

Since when is a person's pet peeve, or something that goes into the "Wacky Novelty News" setion a basis for a UN resolution? Frivolous court cases are thrown out. The rest are tried because an injustice has supposedly occured. Whether they win or not is up to the courts. The UN has no place saying what court cases are "unnecessary."

I agree with you.but even more so, this doesn't belong in the UN. It's not an international issue, it is a national one.

Peace,
Stephanie.

God lord, you've finally figured out that the UN ought not to be dealing with purely internal matters?

I've known all along.. you just didn't want to hear what I was saying ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.

That's interesting...please correct me if I am wrong but I recall Stephistan voting in favor of "free education"... It is pretty clear that the "free education" proposal would be a national issue but that didn't seem to stop you on that proposal.

I don't remember how Stephistan voted (but I suspect you are correct). However, we would note that while the "Free Education" bill forced nations to grant the right to an education to a CHILD, this bill takes away the right of a NATION to determine what lawsuits are frivolous.

Yes, the "Free Education" bill took away the right of a nation to DENY a child an education, but this bill takes away the right of a nation to ALLOW necessary lawsuits.

I might also add that education and the importance of it is in fact a international issue. This resolution is not. It's basic civil law! I hardly think the two can be compared!

Peace,
Stephanie.

I might also add that education and the importance of it is in fact a international issue. This resolution is not. It's basic civil law! I hardly think the two can be compared!


You could always repudiate the UN's interference in domestic affairs and leave the UN.

I might also add that education and the importance of it is in fact a international issue. This resolution is not. It's basic civil law! I hardly think the two can be compared!


You could always repudiate the UN's interference in domestic affairs and leave the UN.


Hahaha good sense of humor ;)

I might also add that education and the importance of it is in fact a international issue. This resolution is not. It's basic civil law! I hardly think the two can be compared!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Where would you draw the line between National Sovereignty and International Issues? What is the determining factor?

I might also add that education and the importance of it is in fact a international issue. This resolution is not. It's basic civil law! I hardly think the two can be compared!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Where would you draw the line between National Sovereignty and International Issues? What is the determining factor?

Perhaps the defining factor is what rights are being infringed upon. The Education bill infringed on a nation's right to keep its children uneducated. This bill can infringe on a nation's right to enforce its own laws (including many good and worthwhile laws).

I might also add that education and the importance of it is in fact a international issue. This resolution is not. It's basic civil law! I hardly think the two can be compared!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Where would you draw the line between National Sovereignty and International Issues? What is the determining factor?

She draws the line where her political agenda starts. As long as it sounds good to her, she doesn't seem to care if it infringes on sovereignty, only when it's something that goes against her point of view. I for one gave up the "National Sovereingty" bit because of the fact that it won't stop my opponents from pushing their proposals that violate my point of view. Therefore, the only way to win is to beat them at their own game, and thus make them follow common sense!

I might also add that education and the importance of it is in fact a international issue. This resolution is not. It's basic civil law! I hardly think the two can be compared!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Where would you draw the line between National Sovereignty and International Issues? What is the determining factor?

She draws the line where her political agenda starts. As long as it sounds good to her, she doesn't seem to care if it infringes on sovereignty, only when it's something that goes against her point of view. I for one gave up the "National Sovereingty" bit because of the fact that it won't stop my opponents from pushing their proposals that violate my point of view. Therefore, the only way to win is to beat them at their own game, and thus make them follow common sense!

I might also add that education and the importance of it is in fact a international issue. This resolution is not. It's basic civil law! I hardly think the two can be compared!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Where would you draw the line between National Sovereignty and International Issues? What is the determining factor?

She draws the line where her political agenda starts. As long as it sounds good to her, she doesn't seem to care if it infringes on sovereignty, only when it's something that goes against her point of view. I for one gave up the "National Sovereingty" bit because of the fact that it won't stop my opponents from pushing their proposals that violate my point of view. Therefore, the only way to win is to beat them at their own game, and thus make them follow common sense!

I might also add that education and the importance of it is in fact a international issue. This resolution is not. It's basic civil law! I hardly think the two can be compared!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Where would you draw the line between National Sovereignty and International Issues? What is the determining factor?

She draws the line where her political agenda starts. As long as it sounds good to her, she doesn't seem to care if it infringes on sovereignty, only when it's something that goes against her point of view. I for one gave up the "National Sovereingty" bit because of the fact that it won't stop my opponents from pushing their proposals that violate my point of view. Therefore, the only way to win is to beat them at their own game, and thus make them follow common sense!