Osiris Fraternal Order

I propose the following be added to the Article 1 of the Legal Code of the Osiris Fraternal Order

Section 4: Personae Non Gratae

(1) The Council of Guardians may, with the assent of the Pharaoh, establish certain individuals as Persona Non Grata and rescind Personae Non Gratae from individuals with the assent of the Pharaoh.
(2) In the event that a Guardian is being considered for Persona Non Grata status, they will be automatically removed from the Council of Guardians pending the result of the vote.
(3) Citizenship will automatically be revoked from any citizen declared to be Persona Non Grata, and they will be banned from Osiris for as long as they maintain Persona Non Grata status.
(4) The following individals are considered Persona Non Grata:
(5) The above clause may automatically be updated by the Chief Scribe or legislative deputies upon the establishment of additional Personae Non Gratae.

I've found it confusing since the passing of the Proscribed Regions amendment that we can declare organizations to be unworthy of Osiris' time whole cloth, but we cannot declare individuals who work to subvert the Osiris Fraternal Order PNG by themselves. This amendment looks to fix that. I'm not married to any ideas in here, but this is what I feel would be best for Osiran security moving forward, especially considering recent concerns.

Thoughts?

Like everything you propose, Syb, it looks good! No objections here.

Quick grammar point - the Latin term is Persona Non Grata - not Persona Non Gratae.

This proposal uses both languages.

Otherwise, I dig it.

Apologies. I used the plural (Personae non Gratae) when the plural seemed more proper gramatically. The last example of section 1 referrs to the ability to rescind multiple PNGs at once, and in 5, it is absolutely correct.

Your language for Guardian conflicts of interest removes them from the council permanently. It says "pending the result of the vote" but doesn't really say what happens after a vote one way or another. Assuming they're not declared PNG, they would need to go through the whole nominating/voting process all over again. This could be fixed with a little legislatese but really you can just forbid Guardians from voting on their own PNG status.

Beyond that, I'd suggest you outline the exact process by which the guardians would make this decision.

Would this conflict with the fact that the council of scribes must remove guardians now? I guess PNG is serious enough to order the removal of a guardian without the council's input. I don't have an issue with the guardians having that authority, but I am just not sure if it conflicts.

This doesn't necessarily mean I won't provide assent, but I'm not sure this is needed. The Council of Guardians already approves revocations of citizenship at the request of the Pharaoh. If this is intended just to enable the Council of Guardians to revoke citizenship independently of a request from the Pharaoh, that can be accomplished with a minor amendment to existing law. What am I missing?

Aside from that, Adytus is right that allowing the Council of Guardians to remove one of their own from the Council of Guardians, even temporarily, would contradict Article II, Section 2(3) of the Scroll of Ma'at, and thus would be unconstitutional. The intent appears to be to ensure a Guardian can't vote on his or her own PNG. If that's the case, just make clear the Guardian can't participate in their own PNG vote, don't say they're removed from the Council, and it will be constitutional.

Cormac wrote:Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:17 pmThis doesn't necessarily mean I won't provide assent, but I'm not sure this is needed. The Council of Guardians already approves revocations of citizenship at the request of the Pharaoh. If this is intended just to enable the Council of Guardians to revoke citizenship independently of a request from the Pharaoh, that can be accomplished with a minor amendment to existing law. What am I missing?

Aside from that, Adytus is right that allowing the Council of Guardians to remove one of their own from the Council of Guardians, even temporarily, would contradict Article II, Section 2(3) of the Scroll of Ma'at, and thus would be unconstitutional. The intent appears to be to ensure a Guardian can't vote on his or her own PNG. If that's the case, just make clear the Guardian can't participate in their own PNG vote, don't say they're removed from the Council, and it will be constitutional.

Article II, Section 2(3) simply states: The Council may remove any government officer from office by three-fifths majority vote, with the assent of the Pharaoh. The Council may not remove the Pharaoh from office.

There is nothing preventing other means of removal, rather, the Scroll of Ma'at outlines the only current way it is possible. Any additional powers granted under law would be constitutional without an exclusivity clause. This is just "may." If it was unconstitutional, there would have to be something stating that it is the only way to do so.

Ultimately, the point of this is to maintain a solid list of enemies of the state and OOC harassers. Right now, we have proclamations and an ability to remove citizenship. Technically, under the current law, we have no means of creating a true permanent ban from Osiris, and all such bans are only words. This seeks to give those words actual power, and give us a formal tool of condemnation, banning, and removal of citizenship from Osiris.

As for the Guardians complaint, to be utterly frank, if I don't drown it in legalese, it is on the Pharaoh to determine when someone is seriously being considered, and it's on the Pharaoh to determine the best way to proceed. The failure of the Council of Priests was that its over-legislation made it so that we had to declare a State of Emergency in order to clean out what was ultimately a compromised governmental entity. This prevents that exact problem from happening again.