NationStates Jolt Archive

This resolution gives the UN courts a power they have no place holding. The Common Sense Act II provides that idiotic and frivolous lawsuits are dismissed by the courts of our United Nations. If a member nation has a problem with lawsuits of a frivolous nature in their courts, I believe it is for that nation to take steps of its own to remedy the situation. It is not for the UN to be awarded an arbitrary power to announce a lawsuit "idiotic" and to remove it from the member nation's courts. As has been otherwise resolved, each citizen is entitled to due process. I believe this conflicts with an individual's right to being heard in court.

Delegates, support this repeal proposal and join the side of "common sense".

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #30
Proposed by: The South Outpost

Description: UN Resolution #30: Common Sense Act II (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This Act can be seen to give the courts of the UN an arbitrary power which they can no longer be allowed to have. There are more fitting ways by which these frivolous lawsuits can be avoided. I suggest that member nations that are plagued by such lawsuits to alter the structure of their courts, giving power to the judge to rule on matters of punishment, and give juries merely power over the verdict of a case.

This resolution (Common Sense Act II) has been on my "top ten" list of those needing to be repealed for quite some time. Thus, Krioval approves the repeal.

This resolution gives the UN courts a power they have no place holding. The Common Sense Act II provides that idiotic and frivolous lawsuits are dismissed by the courts of our United Nations. If a member nation has a problem with lawsuits of a frivolous nature in their courts, I believe it is for that nation to take steps of its own to remedy the situation. It is not for the UN to be awarded an arbitrary power to announce a lawsuit "idiotic" and to remove it from the member nation's courts. As has been otherwise resolved, each citizen is entitled to due process. I believe this conflicts with an individual's right to being heard in court.

Delegates, support this repeal proposal and join the side of "common sense".

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #30
Proposed by: The South Outpost

Description: UN Resolution #30: Common Sense Act II (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This Act can be seen to give the courts of the UN an arbitrary power which they can no longer be allowed to have. There are more fitting ways by which these frivolous lawsuits can be avoided. I suggest that member nations that are plagued by such lawsuits to alter the structure of their courts, giving power to the judge to rule on matters of punishment, and give juries merely power over the verdict of a case.

Blah blah blah national sovereignity blah blah blah.

Basically, you have nothing really convincing. Your entire arguement is a case of national sovereignity and your suggested course of action is one that most nations simply won't follow. If people fixing their societies were the best solution, we'd have no reason for the UN.

Uh, DLE, this might be one of those cases where the national sovereignty argument might be sufficient without much reinforcement. I mean, the CSAII mandates that one's courts automatically reject certain lawsuits. As such, it has nothing to do with international affairs at all, where at least things like extradition, protection of dolphins, and same-sex marriage have international components.

Uh, DLE, this might be one of those cases where the national sovereignty argument might be sufficient without much reinforcement.

I doubt it. If it were, this repeal would have passed twelve attempts ago. Everyone who has tried to repeal that resolution has used national sovereignity, so the use of that arguement at this point automatically sheds a bad light on the proposer.

I mean, the CSAII mandates that one's courts automatically reject certain lawsuits. As such, it has nothing to do with international affairs at all, where at least things like extradition, protection of dolphins, and same-sex marriage have international components.

That's a "not worth the UN's time" arguement, which is an entirely different method of arguing. It's been done quite a bit with this one, but that's more likely to pass than the arguement currently used.

Humm....In our mind this is one resolution that takes a step towards allowing the UN to become a world dictatorship. (I know this sounds harsh.)

It seems to allow the UN court to dictate or overide a member nations court not to mention a persons right to sue, counter sue, etc is a bit intrusive. I do not see how this can be classified as an international issue. (Unless it is a international company being sued. The perhaps the UN court sould hold sway.)

Would the UN be confortable in allowing a member nation to restrict law suits from it people who have been wrongly convicted or have had property damages due to raids by police?

I think we would support the repeal.

Humm....In our mind this is one resolution that takes a step towards allowing the UN to become a world dictatorship. (I know this sounds harsh.)

The part in the FAQ about the UN being for forcing your viewpoint on all members was the first step, and that was written by Max Barry. Pretty much, the UN is a dictatorship of the majority, and nothing will really change that.

It seems to allow the UN court to dictate or overide a member nations court not to mention a persons right to sue, counter sue, etc is a bit intrusive. I do not see how this can be classified as an international issue. (Unless it is a international company being sued. The perhaps the UN court sould hold sway.)

The UN has the right to override any aspect of your nation it does not explicitly protect and which is not a game mechanics issue. The only issue you can really fight on is whether or not it is worthy of the UN to bother doing that with.

Would the UN be confortable in allowing a member nation to restrict law suits from it people who have been wrongly convicted or have had property damages due to raids by police?

If the majority wanted it, then yes.

I think we would support the repeal.

I cannot support the arguement you have presented.

The part in the FAQ about the UN being for forcing your viewpoint on all members was the first step, and that was written by Max Barry.

There's only one part of this I'll dispute, namely the assertion that Max said the UN was for forcing your viewpoint on all members.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

What this actually says is that "the UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision," a very accurate assertion that does not assign an actual purpose to the UN, but merely states that you (the player) have a chance to mold the world to your vision if you are a UN member.

Besides, national sovereignty is just another view to enforce on the world through the UN.

There's only one part of this I'll dispute, namely the assertion that Max said the UN was for forcing your viewpoint on all members.



What this actually says is that "the UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision," a very accurate assertion that does not assign an actual purpose to the UN, but merely states that you (the player) have a chance to mold the world to your vision if you are a UN member.

Unfortunately, it is pretty much the only item that gives anything resembling a goal for the UN. And as such, it states the UN is to be molded to the vision of those involved. That is pretty much a case of "force your own viewpoint on the UN."

Besides, national sovereignty is just another view to enforce on the world through the UN.

And it makes a lousy arguement for a resolution due to the view that it does not follow the spirit of the UN. No matter what you get that presents it, even if I don't argue, you're going to get people who point to the FAQ and say the arguement is invalid.

Unfortunately, it is pretty much the only item that gives anything resembling a goal for the UN. And as such, it states the UN is to be molded to the vision of those involved.

No it does not. It states that it is our chance to mold the world to our vision. Simply repeating that the FAQ says something that it does not will not make it so, no matter how many times you do it. And quite frankly, it's nonsensical to read the FAQ how you want it to read just so you can find a purpose for the UN. You don't see me going around interpreting the FAQ to mean what I want it to when it says something different.

Second, you can endorse other UN members, which is a way to signal that you like their policies, or their leader, or their cool flag, or whatever. The nation with the most endorsements in each region is appointed Regional Delegate (see below), and gets to wield additional influence.

Let's say I go around telling people that this portion of the FAQ, which says that through the endorsement mechanism I can (read: it's my chance to) signal that I like the policies or cool flags of other members, means that I have to endorse people. You'd say that was bullshit, and rightly so.

And it makes a lousy arguement for a resolution due to the view that it does not follow the spirit of the UN.

What's the spirit of the UN? Where are you getting this shit? It's certainly not from the FAQ. There's no "spirit of the UN" in there.

No matter what you get that presents it, even if I don't argue, you're going to get people who point to the FAQ and say the arguement is invalid.

You're right about that.

I cannot support the arguement you have presented.Well, that is very kind and considerate of you to say, as I don't recall having seen Vanhalenburgh ask you to do any such thing in the first place, :rolleyes:

On the whole, I'll probably support this as :

a) I don't think the original is all that worth of the U.N.'s time when I look at it now.

b) Shock and horror, it strikes me as a matter of nat. sov. to deal with rather than the N.S.U.N. sort-of-thing.

c) Come to think of it, I don't really like to see the N.S.U.N. sticking its nose into what I see as a national level judiciary matter, really, so there is another motivator for me, I suppose. Kind of linked to my b) though, is that.

I'll go dig it up, The South Outpost, and whack my mark on it, if you like.

No it does not. It states that it is our chance to mold the world to our vision. Simply repeating that the FAQ says something that it does not will not make it so, no matter how many times you do it. And quite frankly, it's nonsensical to read the FAQ how you want it to read just so you can find a purpose for the UN. You don't see me going around interpreting the FAQ to mean what I want it to when it says something different.

Your interpretation, but not the only one. Where do you see in the FAQ that states that is not the purpose? Where do you see in the FAQ that it is just some minor explanation Barry put up that doesn't actually matter when it comes to running the UN? Hell, find something anywhere in the official rulings on the site that states that.

Let's say I go around telling people that this portion of the FAQ, which says that through the endorsement mechanism I can (read: it's my chance to) signal that I like the policies or cool flags of other members, means that I have to endorse people. You'd say that was bullshit, and rightly so.

No, I would just let you continue. An arguement can be presented to allow for it if you have the time to bother. I know I won't, simply because it's not my arguement.

What's the spirit of the UN? Where are you getting this shit? It's certainly not from the FAQ. There's no "spirit of the UN" in there.

The spirit of the UN amounts to the reason why it exists, besides just some random game mechanic thrown in for kicks. It's just like how the U.S. Constitution fails to mention a spirit, and yet can have the spirit of it violated.

You're right about that.

Which is why I'm skipping straight to the arguement now. Get it started and dealt with early in case this magically reaches quorum, so that it's on the front page and we can merely tell people to read the first few pages when they bring it up.

Well, that is very kind and considerate of you to say, as I don't recall having seen Vanhalenburgh ask you to do any such thing in the first place, :rolleyes:

Okay, let's translate what I said from politeness to bluntness. "I cannot support the arguement you have presented" means "I'm going to actively campaign against it if it ever gets close to quorum and am already writing up the telegram campaigns, as well as planning my recruitment drive for help with the campaigning and convincing the delegates I have influence over to vote against it." Sound better?

An arguement pointing out the lack of worth to the UN I will not oppose.

Okay, let's translate what I said from politeness to bluntness. "I cannot support the arguement you have presented" means "I'm going to actively campaign against it if it ever gets close to quorum and am already writing up the telegram campaigns, as well as planning my recruitment drive for help with the campaigning and convincing the delegates I have influence over to vote against it." Sound better?Hmmm. Were it actually the precise argument of the proposal writer in question and not of a passer-by who just hapened to support the repeal for their own reasons in question back there, I guess I'd be better able to see the sense in that most dramatic course of action you've chosen to take there against this proposed repeal ... :p

- Now, what really gets me is ... the sheer amount of other stuff I'm swimming in to get to this repeal. Anyone know which page it is on at the moment ? I've gotten to 17 and I'm worried I may have passed it by accident. Any help, folks ?

As I see it, there seem to be two options. Provided a nation has fair and unbiased courts, the UN should either take no part in their process, or take full control. Why should a certain group of cases be put under the jurisdiction of an international court for an arbitrary reason?

National sovereignty aside, I am speaking of the independance of the courts. A nation's courts should apply the law in that nation. The judges of that nation should apply the law in that nation. Who is better suited to decide how a nation's individual laws are applied, the individual nation's courts or an international organisation? Until the law is the same in all nations, each nation is best suited to apply its own laws.

Perhaps an appeal court could be created that was the highest of courts for every UN nation, much like the Privy Council in the UK is the final appeal court for some of the UK's colonies, dominions etc.

At least support this through to a vote. You don't need ot support a proposal to approve it to a vote. You just need to recognise that it is an issue. Let it be heard. Judicial independence.... seems like an important issue to me.

For those interested, the proposal is on page 18 of the proposals at the moment.

Your interpretation, but not the only one.

*raises eyebrow* I don't recall doing any interpretation. I just pointed out what it actually says.

Where do you see in the FAQ that states that is not the purpose? Where do you see in the FAQ that it is just some minor explanation Barry put up that doesn't actually matter when it comes to running the UN? Hell, find something anywhere in the official rulings on the site that states that.

I never saw any of those things in the FAQ, but neither do I assume that something is just because there is nothing saying it isn't. You might as well assume that flying pink elephants are circling around you because no one says they aren't.

No, I would just let you continue. An arguement can be presented to allow for it if you have the time to bother. I know I won't, simply because it's not my arguement.

Ah.

The spirit of the UN amounts to the reason why it exists, besides just some random game mechanic thrown in for kicks. It's just like how the U.S. Constitution fails to mention a spirit, and yet can have the spirit of it violated.

Good analogy, but I still have yet to see a valid argument for the spirit of the UN being "forcing the rest of the world to my viewpoint" based on the FAQ. If the spirit of the UN is indeed the reason for its existence (purpose) as you have indicated, then you'll have to prove that that particular portion of the FAQ lays out the purpose, something you can't do validly by simply saying that it does. You need to magick something up that allows you to draw an imperative conclusion from a declarative that does not lead logically to the imperative and/or have Max come out and say that it lays out the purpose of the UN.

Which is why I'm skipping straight to the arguement now. Get it started and dealt with early in case this magically reaches quorum, so that it's on the front page and we can merely tell people to read the first few pages when they bring it up.

Bloody helpful of you.

Hmmm. Were it actually the precise argument of the proposal writer in question and not of a passer-by who just hapened to support the repeal for their own reasons in question back there, I guess I'd be better able to see the sense in that most dramatic course of action you've chosen to take there against this proposed repeal ... :p

I had two overdramatic moments left over from this week and needed to use them in a hurry. Plus, I'm behind in my usage of my asshole supply, and that stuff tends to expire if you don't use it within a month. Trust me, you don't want to know what expired asshole smells like.

Seriously, my view is simple: Rewrite the proposal to focus heavily on "not worth the UN's time" and then campaign heavily for it.

- Now, what really gets me is ... the sheer amount of other stuff I'm swimming in to get to this repeal. Anyone know which page it is on at the moment ? I've gotten to 17 and I'm worried I may have passed it by accident. Any help, folks ?

This one? Try starting from the back. This shows signs of possibly being a fairly recent submission.

I agree with the line of reasoning, for the most part, that The South Outpost has just provided, and yes, page 18 is the one right now. 4 down, 144 endorsements to go for you. Good luck.

EDIT :Trust me, you don't want to know what expired asshole smells like.Oh, I'm well aware I'm afraid ! :)

It is why I try not to breathe in too deep when I stalk these halls these days.

*raises eyebrow* I don't recall doing any interpretation. I just pointed out what it actually says.

Correct and incorrect. You are taking the symbols with sounds and meanings to them and interpreting them to have a meaning relevant to your arguement. While you are saying what it says, you are still interpreting it in your own manner, even if the interpretation is not a concious act.

I never saw any of those things in the FAQ, but neither do I assume that something is just because there is nothing saying it isn't. You might as well assume that flying pink elephants are circling around you because no one says they aren't.

Nah. They're purple ;)

The lack of such items in the FAQ creates a need to find such items in many people. They grasp on to the only thing they can, and that becomes the purpose. Since the members make the purpose, and quite a few members are willing to argue the purpose with no alternative being presented, it becomes the purpose in a way.

Good analogy, but I still have yet to see a valid argument for the spirit of the UN being "forcing the rest of the world to my viewpoint" based on the FAQ. If the spirit of the UN is indeed the reason for its existence (purpose) as you have indicated, then you'll have to prove that that particular portion of the FAQ lays out the purpose, something you can't do validly by simply saying that it does. You need to magick something up that allows you to draw an imperative conclusion from a declarative that does not lead logically to the imperative and/or have Max come out and say that it lays out the purpose of the UN.

Here, let me quote an of item for you.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

It says it is a person's chance to mold the UN. Through implication of this, that is the UN's purpose. A lack of all evidence to the contrary leaves only an implication of purpose for the UN from a random answer to a question. Let human nature do the rest and it becomes assumed to be the purpose, simply because there is no evidence to the contrary.

Bloody helpful of you.

Well, look at it this way: Fighting me now is a lot easier than fighting 20-30 posters later. I'll at least admit when I'm wrong.

As I see it, there seem to be two options. Provided a nation has fair and unbiased courts, the UN should either take no part in their process, or take full control. Why should a certain group of cases be put under the jurisdiction of an international court for an arbitrary reason?

They're not. The resolution you are opposing simply dictates they will be dismissed from national courts. Here's the text:

Description: Far too many civil injustices occur each and every day in courts around the world. Frivolous lawsuits plague innocent homeowners and businessmen, who have done nothing wrong but earn enough money to become a target of an opportunist.

Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic negligence on the part of the victim shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

Idiotic neglegence shall be defined as such:

1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee.

2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.

3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.

4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

This proposal will lower the tax burden on all citizens, it will make the jobs of Judges and Juries easier, and will help restore a modicum of common sense to the world.

Nowhere in there does it speak anything about the international court having jurisdiction.

National sovereignty aside, I am speaking of the independance of the courts. A nation's courts should apply the law in that nation. The judges of that nation should apply the law in that nation. Who is better suited to decide how a nation's individual laws are applied, the individual nation's courts or an international organisation? Until the law is the same in all nations, each nation is best suited to apply its own laws.

Then, you have to repeal the following resolutions: Fair Trial, Due Process, Universal Bill of Rights, End Barbaric Punishments, Definition of 'Fair Trial', and possibly a few others. All of those involve the UN dictating how a nation will handle legal proceedings within it.

Perhaps an appeal court could be created that was the highest of courts for every UN nation, much like the Privy Council in the UK is the final appeal court for some of the UK's colonies, dominions etc.

That would, in a way, violate the previous paragraph.

At least support this through to a vote. You don't need ot support a proposal to approve it to a vote. You just need to recognise that it is an issue. Let it be heard. Judicial independence.... seems like an important issue to me.

Judicial independence is not something the UN values. Look at how many I found using pure laziness that violate it.

It is why I try not to breathe in too deep when I stalk these halls these days.

No, no. What you're smelling is fresh asshole. Expired asshole is much worse.

Correct and incorrect. You are taking the symbols with sounds and meanings to them and interpreting them to have a meaning relevant to your arguement. While you are saying what it says, you are still interpreting it in your own manner, even if the interpretation is not a concious act.

Even if you consider both to be forms of interpretation, there is quite a difference between interpreting the meaning based on a shared language that has set parameters and interpreting from it a conclusion that does not follow logically from the linguistic or semantic interpretation. You could suggest that it is implied by the syntactical structure, but you would need the author (Max) to verify his intent to make that implication.

The lack of such items in the FAQ creates a need to find such items in many people. They grasp on to the only thing they can, and that becomes the purpose. Since the members make the purpose, and quite a few members are willing to argue the purpose with no alternative being presented, it becomes the purpose in a way.

That's a very good explanation of a causal relationship between the way the FAQ was written and your interpretation, but still doesn't prove the validity of your interpretation.

It says it is a person's chance to mold the UN. Through implication of this, that is the UN's purpose. A lack of all evidence to the contrary leaves only an implication of purpose for the UN from a random answer to a question. Let human nature do the rest and it becomes assumed to be the purpose, simply because there is no evidence to the contrary.

Once again you're suggesting that lack of proof of something is the same as proof of its opposite. Not any more valid than last time.

I'll at least admit when I'm wrong.

Not quite. You'll admit you're wrong when it has been well-demonstrated that you are wrong. The fact that you're wrong is only indirectly related to an admission of such. :D

Even if you consider both to be forms of interpretation, there is quite a difference between interpreting the meaning based on a shared language that has set parameters and interpreting from it a conclusion that does not follow logically from the linguistic or semantic interpretation. You could suggest that it is implied by the syntactical structure, but you would need the author (Max) to verify his intent to make that implication.

Since Barry is not willing to post his opinions, it is only the wording we have to go on.

That's a very good explanation of a causal relationship between the way the FAQ was written and your interpretation, but still doesn't prove the validity of your interpretation.

No, but it does set you up for the next quote.

Once again you're suggesting that lack of proof of something is the same as proof of its opposite. Not any more valid than last time.

When you have a conclusion supported by indirect evidence, no matter what that evidence is, against a conclusion supported by no evidence, by default the side with the most evidence is the correct conclusion until more evidence comes into play. Simple scientific principle, and also why science gets so many items wrong.

We have a suggestion of a purpose, as circumstantial and weak as it is, against a lack of evidence towards the opposite. Which do you think is most likely to be supported?

Not quite. You'll admit you're wrong when it has been well-demonstrated that you are wrong. The fact that you're wrong is only indirectly related to an admission of such. :D

:p

Since Barry is not willing to post his opinions, it is only the wording we have to go on.

You've asked him, then?

No, but it does set you up for the next quote.

I figured this was coming. You're getting predictable. :)

When you have a conclusion supported by indirect evidence, no matter what that evidence is, against a conclusion supported by no evidence, by default the side with the most evidence is the correct conclusion until more evidence comes into play. Simple scientific principle, and also why science gets so many items wrong.

Very nicely played...but wait...

We have a suggestion of a purpose, as circumstantial and weak as it is, against a lack of evidence towards the opposite. Which do you think is most likely to be supported?

The problem here is that I never argued the opposite (that the FAQ supports my pro-sovereignty point of view), merely that your argument was as you so wonderfully put it yourself, "circumstantial and weak".

Thanks, DLE. That was the most fun I've had in a debate in quite a while. :)

Good night (morning really, but I work the night shift so it skews my sense of time). See ya 'round.

You've asked him, then?

Of course. Hell, I send hate mail to the President of the U.S. with suggestions of things he can do to himself that would make even Satan cringe, so emailing Barry with a simple question really isn't that much of a challenge.

I figured this was coming. You're getting predictable. :)

That's because I choose to be. If I wanted to be unpredictable, I'd have simply set you on fire and let than conclude the arguement.

The problem here is that I never argued the opposite (that the FAQ supports my pro-sovereignty point of view), merely that your argument was as you so wonderfully put it yourself, "circumstantial and weak".

Aye, that it is, but at the same time it's the most supported arguement for an interpretation of that section of the FAQ that exists.

Oh, and you did argue the opposite. Or did you forget that little statement awhile back about the FAQ not saying what I said it did?

Thanks, DLE. That was the most fun I've had in a debate in quite a while. :)

Yes. It was fun.

Good night (morning really, but I work the night shift so it skews my sense of time). See ya 'round.

You too. Oh, remember that comment about fire earlier?

~Pulls out a canister of gasoline and a lighter, then turns and leaves. From down the hall, a random delegate can be heard screaming in pain and yelling about being on fire~

Aye, that it is, but at the same time it's the most supported arguement for an interpretation of that section of the FAQ that exists.

You really want me to argue the opposite view, don't you? :D

Oh, and you did argue the opposite. Or did you forget that little statement awhile back about the FAQ not saying what I said it did?

I argued for a different interpretation, one that did not draw invalid conclusions from what was merely a remotely possible implication that is not likely to be proven even if it's true. Not an opposite. If it were actually the opposite, I would have been arguing for an interpretation that supported the purpose of the UN being to free people from other people imposing their views on them by using the UN.

You really want me to argue the opposite view, don't you? :D

Not today. We've hijacked this topic too much and ended up back where we started.

I argued for a different interpretation, one that did not draw invalid conclusions from what was merely a remotely possible implication that is not likely to be proven even if it's true. Not an opposite. If it were actually the opposite, I would have been arguing for an interpretation that supported the purpose of the UN being to free people from other people imposing their views on them by using the UN.

There are four spectrums of opposition in this case.

1. Purpose vs. no purpose
2. Purpose vs. purpose
3. Importances vs. nonimportance
4. Relevant vs. irrelevant

At least, only four that have any immediate effect. It's your basic tesseract.

Then, you have to repeal the following resolutions: Fair Trial, Due Process, Universal Bill of Rights, End Barbaric Punishments, Definition of 'Fair Trial', and possibly a few others. All of those involve the UN dictating how a nation will handle legal proceedings within it

There seems to be a clear difference between telling a court how to deal with individual cases, and how to run a fair procedure and award fair punishments. This Act tells the courts that, in certain situations, they have no discretion to apply any laws.

There is also a frightening difference between this resolution and any resolution which outlaws certain actions of states or individuals. The resolution here involved is created to directly affect the outcome of a trial, or even to prevent it happening. I'm even becoming aware that this resolution may conflict with such resolutions as Fair Trial and Due Process etc.

This resolution basically outlaws an action in court. There are better ways to stop these claims. It's a dangerous place when access to the courts, and judicial independence (which I continue to harp on about) are compromised.

Change the laws, change procedure, change punishments, but don't change the power of a court to look and hear a case.

Thankyou, I love you all

Refreshments are now available at the back of the hall

There seems to be a clear difference between telling a court how to deal with individual cases, and how to run a fair procedure and award fair punishments. This Act tells the courts that, in certain situations, they have no discretion to apply any laws.

Nah. All this does is override national laws in certain situations to make it so that certain cases are not worth the court's attention.

There is also a frightening difference between this resolution and any resolution which outlaws certain actions of states or individuals. The resolution here involved is created to directly affect the outcome of a trial, or even to prevent it happening. I'm even becoming aware that this resolution may conflict with such resolutions as Fair Trial and Due Process etc.

Then you should rewrite your repeal attempt to include that. It's one thing if all you can think of is an issue you can't even get friends to agree on with the UN, but quite another when you can provide evidence that it is contradicting other UN laws and provide an arguement that forces people to do actual work to try to disprove. Plus, it makes for an easier support campaign, as everyone can check the resolution brought up for themselves and compare it to the violation interpretation.

Now we're getting to something I can't argue against.

Do my eyes deceive me? Am I achieving progress with you Enigma? Good times. Noone else seems interested though. Maybe I didn't sit down for long enough in drafting this proposal. Then again, repealed is repealed, and it doesn't really matter what reason the resolution gives, does it? Perhaps I'll try harder next time. I have two thoughts lurking around in my head as it is. But I wouldn't put them out into the big bad world in their present form. They'd likely get torn apart and lose all credibility before I have a chance to figure out what the proposals actually are going to be.

Do my eyes deceive me? Am I achieving progress with you Enigma? Good times. Noone else seems interested though. Maybe I didn't sit down for long enough in drafting this proposal. Then again, repealed is repealed, and it doesn't really matter what reason the resolution gives, does it?
[emphasis added]

Ah, but it does. It matters in whether or not it gets repealed, that is. You need to address something Aristotelians (those who analyze artifacts according to Aristotle's set of rhetorical rubrics) call: Kairos, which, obviously is related to time (or "chronology"). It could be called answering the "so, what?" question, the question of timeliness. Whatever it's called, it's demonstrating the pressing need of a certain argument, document, or artifact itself. If your repeal attempt doesn't have a plausible, pressing need for it to be passed, it simply won't be passed (well, there's also the matter of how well it is campaigned for, which has unnecessarily killed many a good, pressing bills).

The problem with your national sovereignty argument is that it's unexplained. Simply by saying "[t]here are more fitting ways by which these frivolous lawsuits can be avoided" or "[t]his Act can be seen to give the courts of the UN an arbitrary power which they can no longer be allowed to have" isn't explanative enough. You need to lay out a good (and pleasing to read--with white spaces and extra lines) argument from top to bottom. This means you explain what those better ways of handling frivolous lawsuits are, or why the UN shouldn't have the power (or why it's arbitrary). There's a good case (a resolution-worthy case) for the repeal of "Common Sense Act II" buried in your proposal (and a lot of the needed information is in your forum blurb--that first paragraph before the resolution text), it just needs to be exhumed.

I have to cut this short, but I can give you examples of a more pressing, explanatory argument later when I get back online. Until then, like always, I wish you Good Luck! :)

Do my eyes deceive me?

Yes.

Am I achieving progress with you Enigma? Good times.

We're achieving progress with each other. You're providing plenty of supportable reasons and I'm prodding you into including them with your next draft.

Noone else seems interested though. Maybe I didn't sit down for long enough in drafting this proposal. Then again, repealed is repealed, and it doesn't really matter what reason the resolution gives, does it?

The reason why matters very much. It matters as the votes will simply be saying whether or not they agree with the reason, while endorsements will be saying the reason is good enough for UN attention. And, sometimes, it takes several drafts and multiple attempts to even get it to quorum (hell, the one you're trying to repeal went through the same).

Perhaps I'll try harder next time. I have two thoughts lurking around in my head as it is. But I wouldn't put them out into the big bad world in their present form. They'd likely get torn apart and lose all credibility before I have a chance to figure out what the proposals actually are going to be.

Take as much time as you need. The resolution won't exactly be going anywhere until then. Then, it shall be interesting.