Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

by **Neil** 27th October 2010, 23:06

I would like to point out that whilst our constitution does just about fit its purpose, it does so at a stretch. The constitution is often read too much into or unclear points cause controversy in tense times. As a result of this I have started to go through the constitution, closing up various loopholes, rewording informal statements and adding additional points which were never previously included in the most important document governing, safeguarding and strengthening our union. This will bring the constitution of the AIN bang up to date with the various proposals put foward by the likes of Jo, Thomas, Julien and Dan (amongst others) in light of the recent reputatioin-damaging and frankly, embarrasing incidents that took place in our union as well as giving us a professional, solid foundation for the new era the Alliance of Independent Nations is entering.

I plan to do this in about ten stages (some of which will occur similtaneously - the first two have already begun if you are reading this) and encourage as much debate as possible to make this document a representation of how every member feels the AIN should be run. Treat it like a handbook, we are an informal community and not everything has to go by the book as long as you dont piss people off but when something happens this will 'the book' which you should have been abiding by.

SEE ALSO:

Constitution Review Part 1 of 10 - Preamble UNDER VOTE - SENATE

Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens UNDER VOTE - SENATE

STAGE 2 - BASIC RIGHTS

This section is essentially section 6.0 of the current consitution which is based on the ECHR and little is changed except order of appearance in the constitution

ORIGINAL/CURRENT SECTION:

Spoiler:

PROPOSED REFORMED SECTION:

[2.0] BASIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF THE ALLIANCE
[2.1] We agree that all citizens of our nations with our alliance will be entitled to the following rights bound by this constitution and provided by our sovereign governments:
[2.21] Everyone has the right to life & liberty
[2.22]All people are entitled to all rights set forth in this declaration
[2.23] No one shall be held in slavery
[2.24] All persons within the jurisdiction of the AIN judiciary or of a member state's national court shall be entitled to equal protection under the laws of this alliance
[2.25] All people are equal before the law
[2.26] All people have the right to own property
[2.27] No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality
[2.28] All citizens of the member states of this alliance shall be guaranteed freedom of speech and opinion; whether spoken, written or recorded
[2.29] All people have the right to work & leisure
[2.3] No one shall be executed under law in the following terms:
[2.31.1] Death by Firing Squad
[2.31.2] Death by Hanging
[2.31.3] Death by Electrocution
[2.31.4] Death by any other means of torture at the discretion of the AIN judiciary
[2.32] Execution may be done under the following terms
[2.32.1] Death by Lethal Injection
[2.32.2] Death by any other term of non-torture at the discretion of the AIN judiciary
[2.33] The AIN Court cannot hand down any death sentence
[2.34] Any AIN National court may hand down a death sentence if it follows the above laws

Debate will be open for 3 days until this goes to senate or is overhauled completely depending on feedback

by **woodb3kmaster** 28th October 2010, 05:27

A couple of points from me...

2.27 should read "freedom of speech" for grammatical purposes, as opposed to its current wording. In fact, I'd prefer it if this clause read something like "All citizens of the member states of this alliance shall be guaranteed freedom of speech" (possibly with further freedoms added, like freedom of the press. See the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution for additional possibilities.).
I don't know what exactly 2.26 means by "the right to nationality". Could someone please expound what this means? Once an explanation is given, I recommend replacing the phrase as it is currently proposed with something less opaque.
For section 2.3, I propose a rewrite along the following lines:

[2.31] No one shall be executed within any member state or shared alliance property by means of firing squad, nor hanging, nor electrocution, nor any other torturous means of execution, as shall be determined by the AIN judiciary.
[2.32] The courts of member states shall only issue death sentences which call for execution by means of lethal injection or any other form which the AIN judiciary shall have determined not to be torturous.

Finally, I think that 2.24 could be better written as something like "All persons within the jurisdiction of the AIN judiciary or of a member state's national court shall be entitled to equal protection under the laws of this alliance."

by Jo 28th October 2010, 05:59

Hey Zac

2.26 Basically means that a country or countries cannot legally disallow a person there nationality. a quick example for you and which is also the premise of a tom hanks movie called terminal (i think) Is hanks' character leaves his country, whilst in transit the government of his home country is overthrown, or his country ceases to exist. when he lands his not allowed into the US because he has no nationality because the Nation he comes from no longer exists in a legal sense its still there in a physical sense its just not a legal entity so hanks' character cannot enter the US but he also cannot return home either because home doesn't exist thus he is in limbo with no nationality.

Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
You have the right to belong to a country and nobody can prevent you, without a good reason, from belonging to another country if you wish. From the UN

I think that there could also be space for a clause that Citizens of AIN member states should have the right to be able to appeal decisions of the highest courts of their home country to the AIN High Court, But only on a limited constitutional basis on questions of law not on criminal or civil questions.

by **Neil** 28th October 2010, 15:38

This is an important section to our constitution as it essentially a universial Bill of Rights applicable to all nations. Debate extended an extra day.

I agree with both your amendments and they will be added someetime today...

by **Blakeway4** 28th October 2010, 22:41

The Terminal, my favourite movie! Laugh

Syldavia is practising the execution by shooting. I don't understand why it's illegal, it's actually not torture. Syldavia will be doing executions by shooting until this law is clear.

by Jo 30th October 2010, 03:38

Execution by shooting is actually one of the most inhumane ways to be killed because the person can be still alive for minutes sometimes hours afterwards if the shooters haven't done it properly. that is why most western countries abandoned it years ago for lethal injections.

by **Blakeway4** 30th October 2010, 03:42

I know. Some nations of the AIN aren't western countries, so why should the whole alliance be like western countries? Why shouldn't we be tolerant?

by **MiguelLeal** 30th October 2010, 08:43

[2.32] Execution may be done under the following terms
[2.32.1] Death by Lethal Injection
[2.32.2] Death by any other term of non-torture at the discretion of the AIN judiciary

My purpose is: the end dead sentence.
This purpose is the base of a democratic state.

by **Neil** 30th October 2010, 12:22

Julien wrote:I know. Some nations of the AIN aren't western countries, so why should the whole alliance be like western countries? Why shouldn't we be tolerant?

MiguelLeal wrote:
[2.32] Execution may be done under the following terms
[2.32.1] Death by Lethal Injection
[2.32.2] Death by any other term of non-torture at the discretion of the AIN judiciary

My purpose is: the end dead sentence.
This purpose is the base of a democratic state.

The reason this is included in the constitution is solely because it was debated upon and passed as law previously. The majority of the nations within the AIN are western nations and the majority of these nations abolutionist nations. We agreed (and I believe you did too) that we would not tolerate certain forms of capital punishment as they are seen as more inhumane than the current acceptable ways. If a nation feels as if they must preserve their capital forms of punishment, under pre-existing union law they must do so under the current regulations set forth by the current constitution.

Current AIN Constitution wrote:* 6.11 - No one shall be executed under law in the following terms
* 6.11.1 - Death by Firing Squad
......
* 6.12 - Execution may be done under the following terms
* 6.12.1 - Death by Lethal Injection
* 6.12.2 - Death by any other term of non-torture

If, Julien, Syldavia wants to take the union up on this - they must propose an amendment (once, of course, the freeze on consituional amendments is lifted by the executive) to the constitution adding provision for capitial punishment via shooting.

by **Blakeway4** 30th October 2010, 12:27

kk, thnx Neil for your time and infos Laugh

by **Neil** 30th October 2010, 13:42

VOTING OPEN!

by **Thomas** 30th October 2010, 14:00

Voted.

by Jo 30th October 2010, 14:22

Voted affirmative

by **Blakeway4** 30th October 2010, 17:22

Same here

by **Forsma** 31st October 2010, 08:48

voted

by **Thomas** 31st October 2010, 13:47

If you voted no, it would be helpful to Neil if you said why so that he can improve it.
If you accidentally voted no, then you can cancel your vote and re-vote. Smile

by **Gen. Leandro Lima** 31st October 2010, 17:54

Voted.

by **Neil** 31st October 2010, 18:14

Three votes

by **woodb3kmaster** 1st November 2010, 03:04

Voted affirmative.

by **Liberater444** 1st November 2010, 05:39

Voted

by **Aranho** 1st November 2010, 08:08

voted

by **Thomas** 1st November 2010, 18:41

PASSED

by **Thomas** 7th November 2010, 09:52

Neil - I've just read this again, and nowhere does it mention that torture is illegal. Could you add that in to another section when it goes to voting so that we can ban torture?

by **Neil** 7th November 2010, 13:18

I will amend this section without vote as long as noone objects within 24 hours

by Sponsored content

Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Should Section Two of the Constitutional Reform be accepted?

Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens

Re: Constitution Review Part 2 of 10 - Basic Rights of Citizens