Proposal [Proposal] Council of Lazarene Security Procedure Act (March 2022)

[New Rogernomics]

Council of Lazarene Security Procedure Act (March 2022)

Proposed by: New Rogernomics​

Section 1. Administration

(1) The Council of Lazarene Security will be administered according to the below procedures and the Mandate of Lazarus.

Section 2. Voting Procedures

(1) The Chairperson of the Council of Lazarene Security shall require authorization by the Delegate of Lazarus to begin a vote.

(2) The Chairperson is not required to open a vote if they determine that the proposal has not had sufficient discussion, but they may not delay opening a vote for more than seven days from when the Delegate has authorized the vote to take place.

(3) The Chairperson may only withdraw a vote of the Council once it has begun, if they have been given authorization by the Delegate of Lazarus to do so.

(4) All votes will take place for a minimum of three days. Councillors may vote "Aye" or "For," "Nay" or "Against," or "Abstain" or "Present." Voters may not post any other content in a voting thread or embellish the format of their vote in any way, and votes that include additional content or embellishment will be discarded and split from the voting thread. Voters may cast their votes by posting in each voting thread.

Section 3. State of Emergency

(1) A state of emergency shall be defined by this Act as an attempted overthrow of the Delegacy of Lazarus.

(2) Under a state of emergency, the Delegate may authorize the ejection and/or ban of any nation, without a vote, for breach of the endorsement cap, on a temporary basis.

(3) The Council will hold a two-thirds vote to begin or end a state of emergency.

(4) When a state of emergency has ended any bans made during this time will be immediately revoked, unless a vote by the Council has been held on their status.

Section 4. Criteria for Ban, Ejection, and other measures

(1) The one or more of the following shall be permitted criteria for holding a vote:

a. Violation of the regional endorsement cap, after being issued three warnings in succession to cease and desist,
b. Participation in a coup or attempted coup of the Delegacy of a region we hold a treaty with or are an ally of,
c. Infiltration of Lazarus, as a fascist nation,
d. Violation of the citizenship process described in the Lazarene Citizenship Act,
e. Participation in proscribed organizations or regions,
f. Holding more than one citizenship account in Lazarus at one time,
g. Severe in-game misconduct towards regions we hold a treaty with or are an ally of,
h. Verified to have engaged in vote-stacking or election fraud in Lazarus,
i. Censured by the assembly by two-thirds vote,
j. Any person who prepares, incites another or plans to violate criteria herein,
k. Any other criteria that is set by regional law, the mandate, or by the Council of Lazarene Security.

Section 5. Decision Reviews

(1) Any resident or citizen may petition for the Council of Lazarene Security to revoke a ban of a resident or citizen from Lazarus, unless the ban was enforced by a court decision.

(2) Petitions to conduct a Decision Review shall:

a. be submitted to the Council in a public area,
b. identify any changes to their character or status,
c. include quotes and commentary thereof in support of altering their status in Lazarus.

(3) The Delegate shall consider the petition for three days before deciding whether to authorize a review of a decision by two-thirds vote.

(4) Upon deciding to conduct a Decision Review, the Chairperson shall immediately serve notice in a public place that a Decision Review has begun.

(5) The decision and a summary of their reasoning shall be published in a public area.

(6) Once a decision has been reached on a review, the Assembly may vote to overturn this decision by three-quarters vote.

Initial discussion was here:

Loading…

nslazarus.com

If you are interested in any alterations to this, then let me know, though as written this would define clear criteria for bans and such of the CLS in law.

This would also provide for a scenario where if someone has done something objectionable (but not illegal), the Assembly can vote to censure them.

If the Delegate and CLS thinks further measures are required, then at that point it could act on that.

 

[McChimp]

Section four is unconstitutional. It contradicts article two section five of the Mandate, which grants the Delegate the power to impose these punishments without provision for laws to impose limits. Were it to be enforced (which would, as I said, be unconstitutional) it would essentially mean that the CLS would need to prove that somebody had committed one of the listed offences-crimes, if you will-to act against a player. It cripples the Delegate, legally speaking.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Section four is unconstitutional. It contradicts article two section five of the Mandate, which grants the Delegate the power to impose these punishments without provision for laws to impose limits. Were it to be enforced (which would, as I said, be unconstitutional) it would essentially mean that the CLS would need to prove that somebody had committed one of the listed offences-crimes, if you will-to act against a player. It cripples the Delegate, legally speaking.

Criteria set by the mandate, is criteria can be set by the Delegate.

If the mandate states that the Delegate has a certain power, then k applies.

Right here provides what is referred to in k:

(5) The Delegate may, in the case of citizens, after confirmation by a 50%+1 vote of the Council on Lazarene Security, impose revocation of citizenship, ejection and/or ban from Lazarus, or other measures to preserve the security and stability of Lazarus, for whatever duration of time is determined appropriate.

I already described this in the discussion here: https://nslazarus.com/forum/index.php?threads/3878/post-26995

 

[New Rogernomics]

On reflection, since some want this blunter (though I really don't feel it is needed):

k. Any other criteria that is set by regional law, the mandate, or by CLS vote.

 

[McChimp]

Criteria set by the mandate, is criteria can be set by the Delegate.

If the mandate states that the Delegate has a certain power, then k applies.

Right here provides what is referred to in k:


I already described this in the discussion here: https://nslazarus.com/forum/index.php?threads/3878/post-26995

The Mandate sets no criteria whatsoever. The Mandate allows the Delegate to use this power at their discretion without having to meet any criteria with the assent of the CLS. Any law that imposes any criteria is therefore unconstitutional and can only weaken the Delegacy.

 

[New Rogernomics]

The Mandate sets no criteria whatsoever. The Mandate allows the Delegate to use this power at their discretion without having to meet any criteria except the assent of the CLS. Any law that imposes any criteria is thereofre unconstitutional.

Procedural rules of the CLS are subordinate to the laws of the Assembly.

This proposal explicitly states that the CLS may set its own criteria, so it is not unconstitutional.

Removing the vote part, makes it even more so, as then the CLS doesn't need to vote to set new criteria.

 

[New Rogernomics]

There seems to be disagreement over Section 4.

This is an earlier version (near enough):

a. Violation of the regional endorsement cap, after being issued three warnings in succession to cease and desist,
b. Participation in a coup or attempted coup of the Delegacy of a region we hold a treaty with or are an ally of,
c. Infiltration of Lazarus, as a fascist nation,
d. Violation of the citizenship process described in the Lazarene Citizenship Act,
e. Participation in proscribed organizations or regions,
f. Holding more than one citizenship account in Lazarus at one time,
g. Any person that is not a good prospect for remaining in the region.

 

[New Rogernomics]

So, any further discussion on this?

 

[New Rogernomics]

Going to table this, in favor of just making more procedural rules within the CLS.