| 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: |
| The Rule of Law; By Sciongrad | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 28 2016, 11:52 PM (178 Views) | |
| Libetarian Republics | May 28 2016, 11:52 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Spammer
|
Description: The General Assembly, Reaffirming its commitment to fair and equitable treatment of all individuals, Believing that no institution, including the governments of member nations, should be permitted to act in contravention of its own established laws, and that such institutions, including the governments of member nations, should be expected to behave in a manner both transparent and unprejudiced, Asserting, with the aforementioned in consideration, that the "rule of law" is a fundamental component of fair and just governance, and a necessary element in preventing arbitrary or discriminatory punishment, 1. Mandates that all persons, entities, both public and private, and institutions, including the state, political subdivisions thereof, and its officials, shall be held accountable under the established statutory laws, judicial precedents, or any other principles or guidelines with the equivalent force of law of a relevant member nation; 2. Declares that reasonable, good faith exceptions may be made in instances where: some form of immunity is necessary to ensure that government employees or institutions may carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible without the guarantee of immunity or relevant officials or institutions extend pardons, amnesty, commutations, or other forms of clemency, provided such actions are in accordance with the spirit of this resolution and extant General Assembly legislation. |
![]() |
|
| Christian Democrats | May 29 2016, 03:09 AM Post #2 |
|
HMSM James II
|
Against. I'll repeat what I posted on the NS forums.
|
|
"I was born free and desire to continue so." | |
![]() |
|
| Guy | May 29 2016, 12:33 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Old Admin Slave
|
Against. |
![]() |
|
| Evolu Tanis | May 29 2016, 08:57 PM Post #4 |
|
Epistemological Terrorist
|
For. The law may often be wrong; but it is not the purview of any public official to unilaterally decide he is therefore above the law. |
|
Here lies a toppled god. His fall was not a small one. We did but build his pedestal - A narrow and a tall one.
| |
![]() |
|
| Libetarian Republics | May 30 2016, 02:08 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Spammer
|
For. |
![]() |
|
| Guy | May 30 2016, 04:38 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Old Admin Slave
|
The law is often designed not to apply for the government, as it regulates conduct between private actors. The exemption in 2(a) of the proposal is not wide enough. |
![]() |
|
| Sciongrad | May 30 2016, 07:34 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Poster
|
Perhaps you could identify specifically an instance where members of a government may need immunity that is not covered by the "essential functions" exemption? |
![]() |
|
| Guy | May 31 2016, 12:03 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Old Admin Slave
|
It's not about the essentiality of the underlying function, but rather the applicability of the law to the government. Anything from cutting down a tree to selling assets (financial or otherwise) may come under the purview of government regulators, a tad incongruous if it's the government trying to do it. |
![]() |
|
| Sciongrad | Jun 1 2016, 01:08 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Poster
|
If you believe the government should be exempt from following the law simply because it created the law, then I disagree with you fundamentally. If you're concerned that governments cannot perform non-essential functions without throwing the law out the with the bath water, then I also disagree with you fundamentally. I could be misunderstanding your argument, though. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Assembly · Next Topic » |







8:20 AM Jul 11