NationStates Jolt Archive

I beleive the UN needs to have a constitution... some sort of document that dictates what the UN can and can not do. I'm not talking about a resolution that forces its member nations to do something, I'm saying there should be one master constitution for the UN so that no unfair Resolutions get passed.

If you understand what I am talking about, post your comments... because I am sick and tired of these uber-liberal UN resolutions that tell governments what they can and can not do, like seperation of church and state.

I know I've complained about it before, but I think that we should have a non-partisan UN. Not this liberal-lead institution, which takes away many things that make a government how it is.

Raysia, like many nations (in real life even), has symbiotic church involvement in the government, due to a vast majority of one religion. Sure, I think every nation should have Freedom of Religion, but I don't think its wrong for a government to endorse a particular majority church.

This is only one of many issue I see that I think would constitute the formation of a set of 'higher laws' that govern the UN. [Much like in the RL United States,] we should be able to say when a resolution is "Unconstitutional, so that the (i'm guessing) 30% of us who are conservative can actually have a decent chance at preventing liberal-leaning laws from being passed.

Again, if you know what I am talking about, please respond with ideas :)

Doesn't the UN have a charter already? Or am I confusing the RL and NS ones? Can we get a mod to wiegh in on this?
WWJD
Amen.

What you are proposing, then, is a set of limits on the United Nation's power, a way to set up a clear jurisdiction beyond which its rulings should not stray.

We can not support this.

Not because our current government is liberal, although it is to a significan extent. The main reason lies deeper in our ideology, which is in direct conflict with yours.

We look forward to a day when the world of NationStates is ruled by a single government. A day when sovereign states do not exist as such. A day when what are now national governments are provincial governments, with the jurisdiction to control local affairs in the regions which are now nations, but with no power to set any sort of foreign policy, pass sertain sections of criminal law, or make decisions regarding human rights.

A central, democratic, global government would unify the world, end all war, end unilateral decision-making, and make it easier to manage the affairs of developing or economically weak regions.

This is a goal that we know can not be reached for a very long time, perhaps not for centuries. But we do want to reach it eventually.

So you can see that we can not offer any support of your proposal. It would be a roadblock on the path to what we see as a better world.

At the same time, we would like to state that we respect your point of view. Perhaps, if your proposed constitution is not too strict, we may yet reconsider. After all, provincial governments have jurisdictions too.

Office of the Governor.

It won't be too strict, I'm just talking about interfering with some things. If a country wants to ban something, don't give the UN the power to unban it. And as opposite, if a Government wants to support a good cause, don't give the UN the ability to deny them that. If you give the UN the power to seperate church and state, what's stopping them from obtaining the power to control exports from a country, or set laws about where they can send budget surpluses.

So really your only problem is with the separation of church and state? Since when was that uber liberal? It may infringe on national sovereignty I suppose but I thought it was just common sense. Anyway as far as I know if you submit a resolution like that the mods will just delete it.

Maybe a solution would be to just get the real life UN Charter, and use it for NS, deleting the bit about optional ratification of resolutions/declartations. This model has been able to hold up while containing people from so many different viewpoints (Casto and Bush Jnr. come to mind) and so would work well for here.

Any attempt to write a Charter from within the game will fail, cause nobody will ever be happy about it's provisions, the currents RL UNC has 50yrs of tweaking behind it.

Just my 2 cents.

So really your only problem is with the separation of church and state?Basically ^_^ I don't know how we can remain a member of the UN if we don't seperate. We beleive in almost everything else about the UN, except this.

What would Brian Boitano do?

What would Brian Boitano do?

hehehe. Nice.

Maybe a solution would be to just get the real life UN Charter, and use it for NS, deleting the bit about optional ratification of resolutions/declartations. This model has been able to hold up while containing people from so many different viewpoints (Casto and Bush Jnr. come to mind) and so would work well for here.

Any attempt to write a Charter from within the game will fail, cause nobody will ever be happy about it's provisions, the currents RL UNC has 50yrs of tweaking behind it.

Just my 2 cents.
Read article IX section III in the real UN charter. while the UN constitution does give freedom of speach, religion, and all them there human rights, etc. They put in a clause that strips you of all of them. None of them are allowed if they interfere or get in the way of any UN goals or mandates.

It doesn't restrict the UN one iota and thus its toilet paper. Bush Sr. had the opportunity to veto this and while he refused to sign it he didn't veto it which he had the power to do so. Thus he deserves to be tried as a traitor to the US for his primary job is to protect the US's constitution and by allowing the UN constitution to come into affect when he had the power to veto makes him a traitor. In theory the UN Constitution can override the US's constitution and with this article thus strip any US citizen of their rights guaranteed under the US's constitution which means that Bush Sr. did a very poor job of defending it when all it would've taken was a stamp and a stroke of a pen to veto the thing.

Wanna hear what I think about Clinton?
Didn't think so.