NationStates Jolt Archive

I urge you to support my UN proposal: "Government Limitations"

Article I
A government cannot convict anyone, of any crime, without a fair trial by a jourey.

Article II
A Government cannot tax people for participating in free elections

Article III
No government can hold a person in a jail or similer institution for more than two weeks without a fair trial.

Article IV
No Government can prohibit a person from owning firearms and ammunition.

Article V
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed by any Government.

Article VI
No Government can impose a state religion, nor prohibit the practicing of any religion.

(if you wonder about spelling, its written in Mabulian English)

I urge you to support my UN proposal: "Government Limitations"

Depends on if I think I'll benefit from it.

Article I
A government cannot convict anyone, of any crime, without a fair trial by a jourey.

Already have that in my country, so no change. Also, I think this is covered by a previous resolution.

Article II
A Government cannot tax people for participating in free elections

It's kinda hard to have free elections when the people keep voting to have them stopped, so no problem here.

Article III
No government can hold a person in a jail or similer institution for more than two weeks without a fair trial.

Already have something with a shorter time period, so no change here.

Article IV
No Government can prohibit a person from owning firearms and ammunition.

I issue the firearms to my people, so no change here.

Article V
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed by any Government.

Define "excessive," as my definition is "accidentally killing yourself with a nuclear weapon while trying to distract a bank security guard so you can rob the bank." That's used as an example of what can be considered excessive and what cannot.

Article VI
No Government can impose a state religion, nor prohibit the practicing of any religion.

Already covered by a previous resolution.

(if you wonder about spelling, its written in Mabulian English)

Try British English. You could try American, but British English tends to get more respect and is not under constant attempts to get classified as a language separate from English.

Much of it is redundant..... You could literally clip the thing down massively...

I urge you to support my UN proposal: "Government Limitations"

Article I
A government cannot convict anyone, of any crime, without a fair trial by a jourey.

Redundant:

We maitain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution.


1. Is speedy and efficient.
2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.



Article II
A Government cannot tax people for participating in free elections

Original, good.


Article III
No government can hold a person in a jail or similer institution for more than two weeks without a fair trial.

Redundant:

Habeas Corpus; by the passing of this resolution instituting the legal principle of Habeas Corpus by the voting members, Habeas Corpus will thus be affirmed by the United Nations as a set and irrefutable legal principle to which all member nations and all associated internal agencies are subject.

Recognising that Habeas Corpus is a founding principle of law in many nations, the UN formally adopts Habeas Corpus across all member states.

To clearly define Habeas Corpus:

Habeas Corpus is the legal principle that gives a person the right to not be held without charge. A charge must be filed with the judicial authorities of the country in which the suspected crime is committed within 48 hours of the person being held by police, or any other body charged with the upholding of the nation's laws. This period does not apply to any time when the judicial authorities are not active, such as weekends or national holidays. Habeas Corpus also declares accordingly that once a charge is filed, then the person should be treated as per the Definition of Fair Trial resolution.

Further noting,

If the captured or detained person is a prisoner of war or is captured or detained in an area of military conflict by forces of whom may be recognised as the opposition, then the previously recognised and enforced Wolfish Convention on PoWs and not Habeas Corpus shall apply to his or her treatment. Furthermore, be it hereby resolved that any person who is not detained as a prisoner of war is entitled to Habeas Corpus.



Article IV
No Government can prohibit a person from owning firearms and ammunition.

Good, original.


Article V
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed by any Government.

Original, good.


Article VI
No Government can impose a state religion, nor prohibit the practicing of any religion.

Secondary clause redundant:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.



(if you wonder about spelling, its written in Mabulian English)

So, more or less; you can remove all but Articles II, IV, V, and the first part of Article VI.... and it would be fine. Articles I, III, and VIb are not needed.

Missed a couple, Tekania ... and they'd have to be done separately, as this crosses just about all categories.


Article III: Due Process & Habeus Corpus

Article VI: illegal under Rights and Duties of UN States as it prohibits a form of government, one based around a State Church.

Missed a couple, Tekania ... and they'd have to be done separately, as this crosses just about all categories.


Article III: Due Process & Habeus Corpus

Article VI: illegal under Rights and Duties of UN States as it prohibits a form of government, one based around a State Church.

III I recommended throwing out: didn't miss it.

Your assumption on VIa is invalid, as it specifically barrs the state from imposing a state religion. State mandated religion is illegal under UBR Article I, and therefore imposition of a single religion at the expense of all others, even if protected by this resolution, is already illegal; therefore assumptions to protect imposition of a State Church (while the State Church, and its governmental support is legal); it is illegal to mandate attendance and worship at said church. Therefore, Article VIa of this proposal is legal, and within guidelines of established NSUN protocol. (2 points)...

I urge you to support my UN proposal: "Government Limitations"

Article I
A government cannot convict anyone, of any crime, without a fair trial by a jourey.


Erm - no. Some crimes are really trivial, that they either did it or they didn't. Speeding for example, or parking in a restricted area. Although we do have jury trials for anything where it is a matter of perspective (murder, assult) or there is doubt (almost any crime) we don't bother wasting time with jurys when it is a tiny little thing.

Also if they plead guilty to it at the initial hearing, we convict them right away, without a jury, because it seems pointless finding thirteen people to listen to the same thing we have already heard, not to mention expensive and wasteful.


Article II
A Government cannot tax people for participating in free elections


It depends what you mean by tax. We need people to monitor the elections. They have to be paid for. They can't be paid for by a private company, because massive abuse would be on the cards. So it is paid for by the government. The only way the government can pay for it is to get money from the people of TilEnca. Which is tax.

We won't tax people directly, but we have to tax them indirectly.


Article III
No government can hold a person in a jail or similer institution for more than two weeks without a fair trial.


Again - we have to disagree. We have a hearing to determine if they should be sent to trial, but sometimes it can take two to three months to get the trial together. And if that person raped someone, or blew something up, then you can imagine why we would not want to put them back on the street in the meantime.


Article IV
No Government can prohibit a person from owning firearms and ammunition.


NO!! A thousand times NO!!! We have gun control for a reason and we are not handing it over to anyone else.


Article V
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed by any Government.


Depends on who gets to define what excessive means :}


Article VI
No Government can impose a state religion, nor prohibit the practicing of any religion.


I think this is already covered by something else. "Religious Tolerance"


Well - I am going to have to be wholly against it. We are not one for holding people without trial, but sometimes it's not really avoidable. We also don't think that for someone who has been caught speeding and for anyone who has confessed to a crime and pleaded guilty we should be for. And the gun control thing is a deal breaker - that makes it so totally unacceptable you can't even imagine it. And we do need to pay people to monitor elections.

But it was very well written and thought out. So please don't take offence at the fact I think it is a very bad idea - its just you plan to bankrupt my nation and turn everyone in to a gun crazy, so I would have to vote against it.

So, more or less; you can remove all but Articles II, IV, V, and the first part of Article VI.... and it would be fine. Articles I, III, and VIb are not needed.

Article III does not say what you think it says.

It says no one can be held without a fair trial. That is different from holding someone without charge.

You charge someone, that means you intend to try them.

But under this article three it would mean you would have to try every person within two weeks of them being arrested. Which would be a nightmare to organize.

Article III does not say what you think it says.

It says no one can be held without a fair trial. That is different from holding someone without charge.

You charge someone, that means you intend to try them.

But under this article three it would mean you would have to try every person within two weeks of them being arrested. Which would be a nightmare to organize.

Ohh... good point, it would be almost imposible for courts to operate; and trials would be far from fair.......

Kind of redundant, though, so Article III still goes out the window...

*-I'd say, scope out Article II more, for clarification
*-Drop Article IV, or reword it to leave gun ownership to the determination of the member states.
*-Drop Article VIb, as not needed, though I like VIa, since it clarifies the relationship between R&D Art I and UBR Art 1.

No matter how you tear it apart, the six articles would have to be broken into a minimum of four proposals.

I, III, and V: Related to courts, probably Human Rights

II - Furtherment of Democracy

IV - Gun Control (relax)

VI - Even if it weren't already covered, it would be out of place in the Courts document as part of a Human Rights proposal.

I still maintain that "impos[ing] a state religion" is legally permissable in a Theocracy. You may not be able to force anyone to worship or attend, but it's an essential part of a Theocratic government and cannot be outlawed under Rights and Duties. I'm confident that I could get this one tossed on those grounds, even if nothing else was wrong with it.

(+2 points for me, -2 points for you)

Agreed, Culinating II and VIa would be social justice, and not human rights.

imposing state religion, is a violation of UBR Article I.... while you are more than capable of having a State Church, under R&D Article I, you cannot impose it over other religions under UBR ARticle I.

(OOC: It would be much in line with present day England; with a state run church (the C of E) while at the same time as allowing other religious bodies. So the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.... But I can tell you this much, if the R&D is worded so as to allow imposition, the R&D is an illegal resolution, and should not be present; therefore, it is determined that it merely allows religious governments with state churches, as long as they do not impose their religion in violation of the UBR.... Otherwise the R&D is illegal, and should be deleted.)

Article VI
No Government can impose a state religion, nor prohibit the practicing of any religion.

What about theocracies?