Force Regional Forum

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Wax Krovx Belgium

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 8
Clubs / The Forum Club
« on: June 23, 2021, 12:38:25 pm »
Simply A Club Dedicate To Using This Forum.

Clubs / Re: Frontenac Worship Club
« on: June 23, 2021, 12:37:28 pm »
Frontenac is based

The Regional Assembly / Re: Regional Assembly Registration
« on: June 20, 2021, 10:32:15 pm »
I, New Ratttopia, would like to join the Regional Assembly so that I can partake in the decision making for RGBN's future.
Added To The Register Of Regional Assembly Members

Announcements & News / Resignation as Minister of Foreign Affairs
« on: June 12, 2021, 05:27:24 pm »
Due to several factors, not enjoying being Minister, not wanting to attend meetings, and the TSSU incident, I am resign as Minister of Foreign Affairs. It was an honour to server as MoFA, but serving as it and getting tired of several things, I can not take it anymore. I suggest Parmonte as a replacement to me. I will be staying in the FAM to easy the transition.

- Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, The Krovx Belgian Armed Forces

Courtroom / Re: Heart Constitution Review 4
« on: June 12, 2021, 04:40:08 pm »
At the present time I see no illegalities within this document.

Courtroom / Re: Third Request for Review: Constitution of Canterbury
« on: June 05, 2021, 04:31:10 pm »
Necessary changes have been made, and now that Canterbury is recovering from its activity crisis I'd like to get back to work on applying for statehood!,620.msg4012.html#msg4012
Article 1, Section 2 does not state what rights it is referring to

Courtroom / Re: Request for review: Heart constitution No.2
« on: May 25, 2021, 02:35:31 pm »
Article 3, Section 2: This section does not make grammatical sense.
Heart shall use a parliamentary form of government and the First Minister shall be the leader who controls either the largest party or largest parliamentary grouping depending on what is needed to form a majority government and shall the leader of said party or grouping shall be asked to form a government by the Lord Proprietor.

Article 3, Section 2: This isn't a legal violation, but Google Docs is not a method for collecting data. Google Forms is, although a better method would probably be to get Renegalle to copy/paste the voting API and just change it slightly into a census format.
censuses shall occur one week in advance of each election and shall use google docs for security reasons.

Article 4, Section 1: Also not a legal violation, but using randomly selected jurors is generally not a good idea.
3. The Lords Court shall have three randomly selected jurors, in the form of citizens, to oversee cases.

Article 4: This article should state somewhere that the High Court has the sole authority to try federal crimes.

Article 5, Section 2-1a: There should not be commas between "region" and "within" or "union" and "unless".
It is a felony to vote in Heart elections if one is the leader of another region, within the union, unless they are an elected union federal official such as Prime Minister or a House member.

Article 3, Section 3-3b: There is only one region.
The total number of votes cast in each region divided by the number of seats allocated

Article 3, Section 7-1c: Should be changed to "Not be the leader of any other regions within the Union, unless they are a Heart native".
Not be the leader of any other regions within the Union, lest they are a Heart native.

General / Inquiry
« on: May 20, 2021, 10:01:49 am »
The bill has been approved unanimously.
I changed my vote before voting closed to Nay. Even if I changed my vote as a joke, it was still a Nay vote, therefore, how did it pass unanimously?

Courtroom / Re: Order for Review: House Bill 60
« on: May 13, 2021, 11:09:42 am »
This bill is unconstitutional due to Article F, Section 3 of the Union Constitution.
Relevant excerpt:
The Justices collectively shall hold the responsibility of deciding whether or not to hear the case. They may only deny a case if it accuses the defendant of an action which is not illegal under any law or statute which applies to them in the Union or which has been found legal by precedent of another case that, except for those involved, was identical.

Courtroom / Re: Updated Constitution of Hyperion for Review
« on: May 13, 2021, 11:03:17 am »
This document is legal.

II. This Constitution will be the framework of government and its three branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary branch.
CAD has no judiciary because it is not a state.

VI. All citizens have the right to vote in an election.
This should be restated to say "in any territorial election"

IX. All citizens have the right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment.
i. This clause shall be decided upon on a case by case basis.
CAD has no judiciary and thus has no judicial authority.

Conclusion: Not Constitutional

The Regional Assembly / Re: Regional Assembly Registration
« on: May 10, 2021, 01:49:11 pm »
I, Maunaina, would like to join the Regional Assembly so that I can partake in the decision making for RGBN's future.
Added To The Register Of Regional Assembly Members

The Rejected Realms / Re: Foreign Update XXXIV
« on: May 06, 2021, 11:26:39 am »
Thank You For The Update

Elections / Re: Debate: Midterm Elections, May 2021
« on: May 05, 2021, 12:25:40 am »
1. The Justices are responsible for deciding the punishment for a person found guilty, following a trial. You are required to do so with the advice of the Jury. With this in mind, how would you balance your own thoughts on how harsh punishment should be with the Jury's recommendation?
Follow What The Jury Says, Unless It Is Overly Harsh.
2. The Justices are responsible for determining whether any laws contradict the Constitution. With this power in mind, what method(s) would you use to come to a decision as to the legality of a law? If a law was not necessarily illegal but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for it to be overturned?
Take The Advice Of The Other Justices And My Own Thoughts. If A Law Went Against The Character Of The Constitution, I Feel Whether It Should Be Overturned Should Be Handle On A Case By Case Basis.
3. Do you believe it is more important to take your time when deciding the verdict for a case, even if it means the guilty party goes longer without punishment, or do you believe it is more important to quickly decide on a verdict, even if it means the punishment may not be as suitable as otherwise? What factors would tilt this more in favour of one or the other?
Time Should Be Taken In Order To Assure That Nothing Is Missed.
4. Similarly to Q2, if a case was brought to the court against someone who had not necessarily done something that was illegal, but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for the case to be considered?
No. For It Would Not Be Illegal.
5. In what way, if at all, would you like to see the Judiciary changed or reformed?
Encourage Interest In The Judiciary.

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 8