| Welcome to The Rejected Realms, NationStates' ejection-free zone! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can only view some areas of the board and you can only post in the Troubleshooting and Suggestions forum. If you register an account, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customising your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Register now! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| [DRAFT] Articles of Impeachment | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 25 2011, 04:28 PM (674 Views) | |
| Oliver Dion | May 25 2011, 04:28 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Dedicated
|
Please feel free to suggest changes. This was drafted with the assistance of all who were on the TRR IRC at the time. |
![]() |
|
| Northern Chittowa | May 25 2011, 09:42 PM Post #2 |
|
Regular
|
I have a few points.
Actually, as the author of the bill in question, this wouldn’t be Uni’s fault. Indeed, it was put up for debate in the RA on April 16th and went to vote on April 26th. During that time there was a four page discussion regarding it by members of the alliance, within the legislative body of the alliance. If I am right Wop, as one of your reps posted in the debate topic, while both of your reps actually voted when it was put up for vote –Wop voted nay, Fel voted Aye. TRR therefore was consulted about this change, as its reps did take part either in the vote or the discussion. If they failed to represent the region, then that is the failure of TRR’s reps, not the FRA’s nor that of Uni’s. Also, the founding principle of the FRA is thus, as outlined by the Charter;
So while you don’t have a case when arguing that the FRA is acting in contrast of its founding principles via standing only in opposition to an invasion, you would have a leg to stand on if you argued that its current ‘Rouge Feeder Delegate Policy’ is infringing upon the sovereignty of its member regions/of other regions by enforcing it. Should make for an interesting debate. |
![]() |
|
| unibot | May 26 2011, 02:16 AM Post #3 |
|
Chief Propagandist
|
The statement said that it "at least" represented the view of the Arch-Chancellor office, it did not claim to have the Regional Assembly's seal of approval. Under the Rogue Delegate Act, my cabinet had the authority to order the intervention of the South Pacific -- and I stand by this intervention as the right thing to do. Any member-region opposition would have been most appropriately addressed in the Regional Assembly with a vote to withdraw intervention as mandated by the Rogue Delegate Act. |
|
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro | |
![]() |
|
| Whamabama | May 26 2011, 02:39 AM Post #4 |
|
Questionably Evil
|
A member region should not have to run to the FRA forums every night to see if they need to try to get the FRA to stay out of a regions inner problems. Also it's a bit much to expect this would even be possible. Not everyone is watching every feeder, or the FRA forums. Edited by Whamabama, May 26 2011, 02:40 AM.
|
|
Those who don't create, dictate The structure of our world and preach hate | |
![]() |
|
| Oliver Dion | May 26 2011, 02:45 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Dedicated
|
When you match the action to your words, it clearly becomes the action of the FRA, based on your words. The FRA's actions embody your words, in this instance. To claim that you didn't speak for the Alliance as a whole, but that you would embroil the Alliance in such an action on your words and the words of your cabinet alone distresses me. Are you the head of this organization, with all the responsibility that that implies, or not? What I am saying, to put it bluntly and clearly, is that as the head of the FRA, your actions and statements all represent the Alliance. To speak for yourself is one thing, but to match that speech with the aggressive action of the Alliance's military force makes your words carry more weight than a personal bloody comment. |
![]() |
|
| sedge | May 26 2011, 02:47 AM Post #6 |
|
Admin Slave
|
The Policy on Statements (link here) says:
It explicitly refers to the AC releasing statements, because of the trouble that Falconias caused when AC. I'm afraid that's as clear a violation of the policy as is possible. |
![]() |
|
| Biyah | May 26 2011, 02:47 AM Post #7 |
|
High Priest of the Cult
|
I like it, no changes necessary from my point of view.
Edited by Biyah, May 26 2011, 05:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| unibot | May 26 2011, 09:35 PM Post #8 |
|
Chief Propagandist
|
However, the Rogue-Delegate policy permits the sanctioning for intervention by the cabinet -- the purpose of this is to speed up the process for emergencies such as dangerous situations like the quick destabilization in TSP. If the declaration of sanction is required by the RA, this essentially negates the time saved with the emergency clauses of the Rogue-Delegate in practice. In theory, however, the FRA rangers could intervene in a feeder without a public explanation -- but that would cause even more outrage, because now we would have a publicly unjustified intervention. I interpreted the "sanction intervention", broadly to include a public statement not a private sanction -- overriding usual policy would make sense seeing as how the Rogue-Delegacy policy is an emergency policy that exists to litigate unusual situations like feeder coups requiring intervention. If the RR does not support this interpretation, I would recommend consigning one of your representatives to posting your own interpretation for an amendment to the Rogue-Delegate act in the Regional Assembly, which would include if sanctions are to be private sanctions or public sanctions -- because even if you do impeach me, this will still remain as an ambiguous clause for my successors to interpret differently. |
|
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | May 26 2011, 09:38 PM Post #9 |
|
Admin Slave
|
Actually, we intend to repeal the Rogue Delegate act, or at least replace it with what was in place previously.
Edited by sedge, May 26 2011, 09:38 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| unibot | May 26 2011, 09:54 PM Post #10 |
|
Chief Propagandist
|
Well, that's interesting considering it passed with well more than a super-majority and still remains non-controversial outside of the RR even with the TSP intervention (which has been widely supported once again outside of the RR), but nevertheless, the Regional Assembly can always use the activity and appreciates a difference of opinions. However, even if you repeal it, my statement (which still only explicitly represented my own views, not that of the appointed representatives collective) will be grandfathered by the extant legislation at the time. Unless you plan on making this a retroactive repeal -- which is one, questionable, but applicable avenue you could explore. Edited by unibot, May 26 2011, 09:58 PM.
|
|
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro | |
![]() |
|
| sedge | May 26 2011, 10:34 PM Post #11 |
|
Admin Slave
|
No. The policy on statements is a law that you clearly violated. You can say all you like about the rogue delegate policy, but nowhere within it does it allow you to violate the policy on statements. |
![]() |
|
| unibot | May 26 2011, 11:14 PM Post #12 |
|
Chief Propagandist
|
That is clearly interpretable, and as emergency policy, it does override many usual policies. |
|
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms Former Editor-In-Chief, Maestro | |
![]() |
|
| Northern Chittowa | May 26 2011, 11:21 PM Post #13 |
|
Regular
|
Interesting viewpoint, where have you got that from? |
![]() |
|
| sedge | May 26 2011, 11:21 PM Post #14 |
|
Admin Slave
|
The Policy on Statements was passed first. When writing your rogue delegate policy, you should've taken into account that existing law, and made clear there was an exemption from it, if that is what you wanted. You didn't, and thus I can only conclude there is no exemption. For reference, here's the entire Rogue Delegate Policy:
Section B.1 is the part that does something. I see it allows "intervention". I don't see is allowing statements to be released, or any exemption from the policy on statements. |
![]() |
|
| Northern Chittowa | May 26 2011, 11:33 PM Post #15 |
|
Regular
|
...I don't think that's what Sedge meant. Under current FRA law you are allowed, upon Cabinet approval to intervene, however should you then decide that a statement is needed to justify this action (which of course it will be) then you are required to inform the RA about your intent to do so, regardless of whether it is more of a personal statement or not. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Assembly Archives · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2



12:32 AM Jul 11