[Draft] State Code of Osiris

[Treize Dreizehn]

There technically isn't anything that says a Scribe can't be the Pharaoh. I'm just wanting to ensure that new folks signing up can apply for a Priesthood in the Ma'at, even in the future.

I, like you, am curious what others think though, as one of the few really hardcore WAers, I'd be very curious what people who don't care so much about the WA think.

As for approved/initiated. I'm not being very clear in the post above, so lets see if I can make myself understood better.

"Should a challenge election be approved by the Deshret" indicates implicitly that there is a process by which challenges are "approved". There is no such language included, it simply starts.

"Initiated" has no such baggage. It simply indicates that the process is "begun" rather than "approved". That was my basic point. I think the word approved was mine originally even, I just thought it deserved a change.

[Charles Cerebella]

As for someone who doesn't really care so much about the WA, I don't really care much how the WA ministry is settled. I'm not sure if that is very helpful to you though

[Cormac]

There technically isn't anything that says a Scribe can't be the Pharaoh. I'm just wanting to ensure that new folks signing up can apply for a Priesthood in the Ma'at, even in the future.

I, like you, am curious what others think though, as one of the few really hardcore WAers, I'd be very curious what people who don't care so much about the WA think.

I'll wait to see what others think still, but you make a valid point and I'm inclined to agree with you. The Pharaoh could appoint himself Scribe of Ma'at if he wanted but it's important for that to be a mandatory ministry for the purpose of executive participation and Deshret qualification. I hadn't considered that aspect.

As for approved/initiated. I'm not being very clear in the post above, so lets see if I can make myself understood better.

"Should a challenge election be approved by the Deshret" indicates implicitly that there is a process by which challenges are "approved". There is no such language included, it simply starts.

"Initiated" has no such baggage. It simply indicates that the process is "begun" rather than "approved". That was my basic point. I think the word approved was mine originally even, I just thought it deserved a change.

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Good point, I'll make that edit now.

[Treize Dreizehn]

I also noted a possible flaw in section 6.1 a-b.

In a, there is nothing guaranteeing that someone retain a nation in Osiris AFTER an application has been accepted. I'm not sure if that's intended.

As for b, nothing in it mentions people who individually(ie: not part of a group or organization) "declared or engaged in hostility".

Also 6 and 7 use "he" rather than the "he or she" standard in the rest of the document. I've redrafted this to correct the "b" problem and the "he" problem. I have not moved to correct the "a" problem because I don't know if that's a bug or a feature.

Section 6: Rights of Citizens

1. For the purposes of this Code, citizens will be defined as those who have been accepted as citizens by the Pharaoh according to the standards established by law. Minimum requirements for attaining citizenship are as follows:

(a) No applicant for citizenship will be accepted as a citizen if he or she does not have a nation residing in Osiris.

(b) No applicant for citizenship will be accepted if the applicant, or any group, region, or organization he or she is a member of, has declared or engaged in hostility against the Osiris Fraternal Order since 10 December 2013, or if the applicant is part of a group, region, or organization against which the Osiris Fraternal Order has declared war, until the cessation of hostility or war or until he or she has renounced citizenship or membership in said region or organization.

2. The following rights will be afforded to all citizens:

(a) Citizens will have the right to be secure in their citizenship according to the standards established by law.

(b) Citizens will have the right to be secure against ejection and/or ban from Osiris except as a temporary measure to enforce lawfully and publicly established endorsement limits. Citizens will have the right to be secure against ban from the Osiris Fraternal Order forum, though a citizen's access may be temporarily limited to the Pschent for the duration of criminal proceedings.

(c) Citizens will have the right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law which do not violate the spirit of this Code.

(d) Citizens will have the right to petition government officials in relation to all matters and to receive a prompt response to such petitions.

(e) Citizens will have the right to active involvement in the executive branch of government unless precluded by this Code.

(f) Citizens will have the right to apply for, stand for, vote for, and be appointed to government office provided they meet eligibility requirements imposed by law.

(g) Citizens will have the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial before the Pschent of Osiris for any alleged criminal offenses and will not be penalized for said offenses except as ordered by the Pschent.

(h) Citizens will have the right to be secure against double jeopardy in relation to the prosecution of alleged criminal offenses.

(i) Citizens will have the right to be secure against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.

(j) Citizens will have the right to due process of law and equal protection under the law.

(k) Citizens will have the right to be members of the WA or to decline WA membership, to be secure against requirement to endorse any WA nation, to be secure against any specialized endorsement limit below the general endorsement limit, and to be secure against punishment for endorsing any WA nation which has a number of endorsements below the endorsement limit lawfully and publicly established for that nation.

3. The rights established by Section 6.2(a)-(f) of this Code may be temporarily or permanently suppressed in whole or in part through criminal penalties imposed by the Pschent of Osiris, according to the standards established by law. The rights established by Section 6.2(g)-(k) of this Code may never be suppressed.

4. The establishment of rights by this Code will not be construed to restrict or prohibit the establishment of additional rights by law. No rights afforded to citizens by this Code will be construed to be afforded to non-citizen residents of Osiris.

Section 7: Forum Administration

1. The sole legally legitimate forum of Osiris is located at the following URL: https://osiris.valthost.com/index.php

2. Nothing in this Code or other laws of Osiris will be construed to abridge the power of the forum root administrator to grant or deny administrative or moderation power over this forum as he or she sees fit.

3. The power of forum administration and moderation to enforce the Zetaboards Terms of Use and to establish and enforce additional terms of use related exclusively to forum security will supersede all other provisions of this Code and all laws of Osiris.

(a) Administrative and moderation action may be reviewed by the Pschent, by petition of any citizen or on its own initiative, exclusively to determine whether the action taken was necessary for enforcement of the Zetaboards Terms of Use and/or forum security.

[Old Federalia]

I suggest the right to face one's accuser.

[shetef]

I suggest the right to face one's accuser.

I'm hesitant to support that as it could make things....messy for judicial purposes. Criminal trials are dramatic enough- I'd prefer that accusers be permitted to remain anonymous and as Scribe of Seshat I would protect their anonymity.

[Cormac]

I also noted a possible flaw in section 6.1 a-b.

In a, there is nothing guaranteeing that someone retain a nation in Osiris AFTER an application has been accepted. I'm not sure if that's intended.

It was intended. I had intended to set only very basic requirements for attaining citizenship in the State Code, but allow further requirements for attaining and all requirements for maintaining citizenship to be decided by statute. This allows more flexibility than being forced to amend the constitution just to tweak citizenship requirements.

As for b, nothing in it mentions people who individually(ie: not part of a group or organization) "declared or engaged in hostility".

Also 6 and 7 use "he" rather than the "he or she" standard in the rest of the document. I've redrafted this to correct the "b" problem and the "he" problem. I have not moved to correct the "a" problem because I don't know if that's a bug or a feature.

Good call on 6.1(b). Regarding the pronouns, this is actually a problem throughout the document because I tended to use only masculine pronouns in the parts I drafted (particularly Section 2) and others tended to use both. I'll revise it so the entire document uses the latter.

I suggest the right to face one's accuser.

I'm hesitant to support that as it could make things....messy for judicial purposes. Criminal trials are dramatic enough- I'd prefer that accusers be permitted to remain anonymous and as Scribe of Seshat I would protect their anonymity.

I agree with Zeorus here. I deliberately didn't include that because I felt that it added an unnecessary layer of complexity and I also noted that similar language is not included in several other regions' bill of rights. But if others feel that it should be included I'm open to hearing others' views on it; until then, I'm going to hold off on adding it to the draft.

[Theoden Sebastian]

I propose that Section 6.2 (g) be amended to:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

[Treize Dreizehn]

I propose that Section 6.2 (g) be amended to:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

That section is primarily about citizenship, it seems that any language about the details of the trial itself should probably go in the Pshent section.

Also, those lines are directly lifted from the Philippine constitution(we can use real law as sources, don't get me wrong, but I'd suggest at the very least paraphrasing them). I'm fairly certain of it.

Edit: Yeah, I just looked, Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution reads "In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified."

That's pretty much a direct lift(minus the parts about witnesses and right to face the accuser). If we're going to use that(which is a discussion in and of itself), maybe we should rework it?

[Theoden Sebastian]

Aye! Apologies. I was supposed to edit it a while ago, ( I've been reviewing for my midterms the entire day and coincidentally we're covering the Phil bill of rights). I ended up typing the entire thing from my memory.

My point is I wish to have the provision detail the right of an accused to due process and thus what constitutes due process especially in criminal proceedings. I'll reword it shortly.

EDIT:

Apologies for the delay, here is the reworded draft:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to be informed of the cause of the action against him, and shall enjoy a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. He shall have the right to be heard by himself and counsel, and to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding his absence provided that due notice has been given and the accused's absence is beyond justification.