Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ UCAS Political Structure

Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Jun 9 2004, 09:03 AM

How many states and provinces are there in the UCAS? I know North Virginia doesn't get the vote, does the FDC? Also, how many Senators does each state/province get, and what is the size of the H of R?

Also, my game right now is set in 2051, in case anything is different between "then" and "now" (206x).

Posted by: Nath Jun 9 2004, 11:09 AM

According to the NAGNA, there are 31/32 states. Seattle is sometimes called a metroplex, sometimes a district and sometimes a state. In the end it has a governor, two senators and representatives, so I'd call it and count it as a state.

Connecticut
Delaware
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachussetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
North Missouri
North Virginia
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Seattle
South Dakota
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Manitoba
New Brunswick
Nova Scotia
Ontario
Prince Edward Island

Only the southern tip of Manitoba and a corner of Sasketchawan got in the UCAS, I made the count with a single state with Winnipeg as a capital. According to the NAGNA, Newfoundland was annexed by Maine, while maps shows Labrador/mainland Newfoundland as a part of Québec.

There are still two senators per state, for a senate of 62 seats, and one representative per approx. 500,000 inhabitants, which doesn't allow precise calculation since we don't have a break-up of UCAS population, just a total figure (175 millions divided by five hundreds thousands give 344).

Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Jun 9 2004, 07:37 PM

Awesome. Also, would I be correct in assuming that the Senate is still presided over by the VP and the House by the Speaker, or is there some other office that presides over these bodies, possibly a PM or something in a nod to old Canadian government?

Posted by: Arethusa Jun 9 2004, 07:40 PM

Not trying to derail, but has there ever been any examination of the UCAS constitution?

Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Jun 9 2004, 07:49 PM

Actually, far from derailing, that's closer to the original intent of this thread than I was able to articulate. But I think the answer is "no," because I asked that exact question in a different thread (though I can't remember exactly which one). I think it was a thread that had devolved into "UCAS citizens have this right" vs. "no, the corps would have taken it away." It was probably one of the threads about prisons, but like I said, I think the answer was "no, Fanpro has not released a copy of the UCAS constitution." Which I think is a shame, because it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to do. It would take up just a few pages in a sourcebook and go a long way to settling a lot of questions as to what players and NPCs can get away with, and the work wouldn't be that hard, because I'm assuming most of it is based off of current US and Canadian models.

Posted by: Nikoli Jun 9 2004, 07:51 PM

Which at times are diametrically opposed.

Posted by: Nath Jun 9 2004, 09:06 PM

Names are given in NAGNA and PoaD for the Speaker of House and the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate. From what I read about it, if the VP was no longer presiding the Senate sometimes, the other guy wouldn't be 'Pro-Tempore' ('President Pro-tempore' meaning 'President for a time' in latin). There are little things that comes from Canada.

The UCAS Constitution is pretty much a revamp of the US Constitution, Canada got next to nothing outside of the name and the flag. When the new UCAS Constitution was written, the old Amendments of the US Constitution suffered various fates, since they were aware of the issues they fix, some were directly included in the Constitution. I'm not a constitutional expert, but for what is known:

Constitution of the US - Amendments
I-X : it is said they were kept exactly identical
XI : no clue (I'm not even sure what this amendment practically means...)
XII and XXIII : dropped. No more electoral college, it is a direct election.
XIII : included in the Constitution ? (or... see below *little evil grin*)
XIV : probably included in the Constitution, and then changed by the new 14th Amendment establishing SIN and thus SINless status.
XV : the new 11th Amendment covers the account of race (and faith), but not the "previous condition of servitude" (might have be included along with the XIIIth in the Constitution, or let open for megacorporations *real evil grin*)
XVI : probably included (Federal incomes taxes)
XVII : probably included (Senate)
XVIII and XXI : dropped (Prohibition)
XIX : it would have make sense to merge it with the XVth Amendment into the new 11th Amendment, but it seems that's not the case. So sex like slavery might have been included directly in the Bill of Rights.
XX : probably included (President and VP terms)
XXII and XXIX : there first was a XXIXth Amendment that cancelled the limits of two terms. The limits wasn't reinstated in the UCAS, so there were no need for those amendments.
XXIV : probably included (failure to pay tax do no affect right to vote)
XXV : probably included (President replacement)
XXVI : probably included (age over 18 do not affect right to vote)
XXVII : probably included, or never ratified since SR timeline diverges before 1992 (IIRC NAGNA was written in 1991).
XXVIII : since there was a XXIX... no clue about what it was, except is came before the following one circa 2020-2024. As I said, I'm no expert, I don't really know what requires an Amendment (corporate extraterritoriality ? creation of the NANs and Denver/front Range Free zone ? use of the word 'metroplex' instead of 'state' when speaking of Seattle ?)

Constitution of the UCAS - Amendments
1-10: remains the Bill of Rights, probably because people are used to it that way
11 : protection of citizenship against account of race or faith
12 : grants new power to local authorities
13 : megacorporation can extradite UCAS citizens for breach of contract
14 : establishes SIN in 2036
15 : grants new power to local authorities
It is stated those are just 'some' of the amendments, but none of the other have been mentionned

Posted by: Arethusa Jun 9 2004, 09:20 PM

QUOTE (US Constitutition @ Amendment XI)

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Basically, in suits brought against a state by citizens of another [US] state or another [international] state, the state against which the suit is being brought shall not be (unwillingly) subject to US federal law, and will therefore not fall in the jurisdiction of the federal supreme court. At least, that was sort of what it was originally meant as. Since its ratification, it's been constructed as a statement of States' immunity against suits from citizens of other [US] states, its own citizens, and [international] states, unless the state is willing to be sued. This one doesn't generally get a whole lot of attention, as I guess you can imagine.

Anyway, I find it kind of hard to believe that the Bill of Rights has stayed intact. If it has, it has been largely ignored to an almost farcical degree, as far as I can tell.

[edit:clarification]

Posted by: Nath Jun 9 2004, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (Arethusa @ Jun 9 2004, 11:20 PM)

Anyway, I find it kind of hard to believe that the Bill of Rights has stayed intact. If it has, it has been largely ignored to an almost farcical degree, as far as I can tell.

NAGNA says the Bill of Rights wasn't modified but that decisions from the Supreme Court vastly diminished their reach. Oh, and [EDIT] thanks for the explanation.

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Jun 9 2004, 11:54 PM

QUOTE (Arethusa @ Jun 9 2004, 12:40 PM)

Not trying to derail, but has there ever been any examination of the UCAS constitution?

I wrote it out, once. It took a lot longer than I thought, even anticipating 275 years of revisions. But it was complete.

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Jun 9 2004, 11:55 PM

QUOTE (Arethusa)

Since its ratification, it's been constructed as a statement of States' immunity against suits from citizens of other [US] states, its own citizens, and [international] states, unless the state is willing to be sued. This one doesn't generally get a whole lot of attention, as I guess you can imagine.

Well, right now it's treated as a very big deal by the Rehnquist Court.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jun 10 2004, 01:17 AM

North Virginia doesn't have representation? It's big enough.

For the most part the UCAS constitution is the old USA constittution. At the risk of dating myself, in the old Neoanarchists guide to North America they said Canada got a few maple leaves on the flag and the name first, and that was it.

Seattle metroplex get represented as the rump of Washington State. The Metroplex is made up of several different towns of which Seattle is the dominant one.

Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Jun 10 2004, 01:20 AM

A lot of things about government, both real-world and shadowrun are counterintuitive. North Virginia may be big enough to get representation, but so is the real life District of Columbia, and it doesn't get representation. It wouldn't even get electoral votes if the Soviets hadn't made fun of us in front of the UN.

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Jun 10 2004, 01:54 AM

I like the Preamble to the UCAS Constitution in SoNA just because it's so blatanly angry and creates the impression that the entirety of the U.S. and Canada were really fucking pissed off.

Posted by: Inquisitus Jun 10 2004, 05:37 AM

Alright, not to detract even further from the discussion because my game has had legal problems before, but doesn't the fact that local/"state" police work is totally delegated to private contractors mean that basically all of the rights expressed in US constitution Amendments IV-VIII are essentially void? I mean the current judicial precedent would seem to indicate that private "police" officers working on a contractual basis with the state (so admittedly none of them have ever worked in the capacity of rank-and-file police officers, but bail-bondsmen who hold fugitives in their legal custody after they have skipped bail are pretty close) have far greater latitude when operating in a police capacity than actual police officers. Or do prior judicial precidents established by the US Supreme Court or the Canadian equivolent even apply to UCAS law (because I could certainly see grounds for challages to their validity occuring when the previous governing apparatus ceased to be)? I never really gave it that much thought, but are actual government agents (ie: FBI, ATF, ect.) even bound to honor detainees due process rights in the UCAS? Do agencies like Lone Star and Knight Errant have to?

Posted by: Entropy Kid Jun 10 2004, 10:33 AM

Someone with the LS sourcebook (if it's even covered) would be more qualified to answer, but I can take a guess.

It'd make sense that in order to get the contract Lonestar would have to follow whatever procedures the UCAS decided upon. Of course looking at things very negatively, it'd also make sense if they were only required to have some kind of official process, devised by the corporation itself. So if LS corp rules allow arrest and lockup without charges for a week or two, maybe that's good enough for the UCAS government.

It depends how many American ideals about justice, freedom, (etc) survive the restructuring of the U.S. into the UCAS. If people still take the Bill of Rights seriously, I'd expect LS to have to follow federal and local laws/regulations, and in there somewhere would be treatment of prisoners and rights of the accused. If those are the laws they're paid to enforce, I imagine they'd have to follow them.

Posted by: shadd4d Jun 10 2004, 11:08 AM

There's something like that mentioned in Corp Shadowfiles. It states that Lone Star may be out of luck in terms of using UCAS or whatever national laws to get something done, i.e. extradition. On the other hand, they can fall back on their AA-corp status to do corporate extradition, and then try the poor bugger according to Lone Star corp law.

Don

Posted by: Inquisitus Jun 10 2004, 09:03 PM

So when it comes down to it, my poor runners will probably be tried in a UCAS court of law even if they were caught by extra-territorial LS?

Posted by: Nikoli Jun 10 2004, 09:06 PM

No, more likely they'll receive a 2 trial to the back of the head on the way to UCAS soil, then be dumped overboard, lost in transit, etc. and listed as shot while escaping.

Posted by: Inquisitus Jun 10 2004, 09:08 PM

Guess that adds to the expedience of my runners need to escape then....

Posted by: Nikoli Jun 10 2004, 09:09 PM

Why do you think soldiers are trained to do their best to not be captured or taunt their capters into killing them quickly?

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jun 10 2004, 10:34 PM

no civil rights still allpy because the private corps are contracted to uphold the laws of the land. This does not go on corp grounds if the corp is extrateritorial. Lone Star, for example is contacted to defend the constitutuion and siunce the station houses are owned by Seattle, the civil rights apply, now if the squad car wants to make a stop off at a Lone Star Corporate office before the station house, the runner is SOL.
So doing would violate the runner's civil rights of being protected while in custody so LS probably doesn't want yopu to be able to tell any one but... just incert you favorit mind bending or bnody breaking toy here.

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Jun 11 2004, 03:49 AM

QUOTE (Inquisitus @ Jun 9 2004, 10:37 PM)

A private actor engaging in a fundamental state activity is considered a quasi-state actor, and therefore must obey all laws which apply to the states. The police power is probably the only fundamental state power still around by 2060 because it is the "legitimate" use of force that defines a state's sovereignty.

The reason why bounty hunters can do what they do is because they are acting to enforce contracts, not engage in law enforcement activities. They are not law enforcement (Uunlike cops, who are jerkoffs with guns and the authority of the state, they are just pieces of crap with guns.)

However, Lone Star vehicles and police stations are extraterritorial property (chattel and real estate, respectively). In which case, their law applies; not UCAS law.

And there are plenty of law enforcement officers who are agents of the state ("State" being a city, county, state, of the UCAS government). They are just rare in large cities. Of course, while contracting police is not original (the RCMP provides contract policing in Canada for places that don't have their own), I find it hard to believe that sheriffs with officers loyal to them (well, the state. The UCAS still pays lip-service to the Rule of Law) will disappear from come cities with Lone Star or KE or whatever contracts, especially where the major city has not merged with the county (since most sheriffs are elected by the counties). Likewise, some state police departments will still be around because some counties may barely have a sheriff and deputy(-ies).

But there are a lot less rights (which is why I find it baffling that mind probe is considered a violation of V) in SR. Hell, you can't even take the Fourth Amendment at face value anymore NOW.

Two interesting things which SoNA brings up:

The ability to suspend habeas corpus and the liberties in declaring martial law are strong in SR
Contract Law is somewhere in the UCAS Constitution, and is ostensibly there to sate the Business Recognition Accords and corp extraterritoriality

Posted by: Nath Jun 11 2004, 11:14 AM

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)

Contract Law is somewhere in the UCAS Constitution, and is ostensibly there to sate the Business Recognition Accords and corp extraterritoriality

Its the 13th Amendment of the the UCAS Constitution that concerns contracts, and logically it has been ratified before the 14th Amendment establishing SIN and ratified in 2036. The Corporate Court proposed the Business Recognition Accords later in 2042.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Jun 11 2004, 09:41 PM

Wasn't the Business Recognition Accords modeled on the UCAS interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling? I'd imagine that the 13th and 14th came pretty quickly (just guessing), and both strengthen corporate power. I'm of the opinion that the Corporate Council/Court/Cabal didn't purpose the Accords until they had the UCAS firmly under control as a working example.

Posted by: Inquisitus Jun 11 2004, 11:36 PM

QUOTE

This actually brings another legal question to mind (not having a copy of SoNA I find this all very interesting): Does the UCAS honor rulings made by the United States Supreme Court? I mean logically the passage of the 13th and 14th UCAS amendments could also be taken as a means to perpetuating the Shiawase and Seretech decisions, even though the actual decision was no longer binding to the UCAS, couldn't it? I guess that would make sense too considering that I've never heard of LS, KE, or even local law enforcement Mirandizing anyone in the Sixth World....

Posted by: Nath Jun 12 2004, 12:08 AM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten)

To some extent. In the first decade of the XXIth Century US probably exported the corporate extraterritoriality like they already exported corporate structure and accountancy standards. For the timing, I think there are much more parameters that'd make it the right time to introduce the BRA. After losing California and the CAS and refusing to military intervene in Europe or Middle East, the US/UCAS no longer were an undisputed leader for the world, the major computer/telecom industry being rebuilded by Japan under corporate control, mid-eastern oil no longer being they key to geopolitic (if you ask me,Saudi Arabia would have been involved in the Jihad because the oil fortune no longer held the youth and islamists in line) and the europeans were finishing the euro-wars (war is rarely the right time to propose liberal idea). I don't know Carl Preston economic policy well enough to tell if the situation in the UCAS was the decisive signal for the BRA.

The BRA is seemingly a minimal agrement. UCAS laws are considered as the base because Seattle is the default gaming area. Pueblo, Québec or CAS signed the BRA and yet the megacorporations aren't as free there as they are in the UCAS.

Posted by: Nath Jun 12 2004, 12:15 AM

QUOTE (Inquisitus)

This actually brings another legal question to mind (not having a copy of SoNA I find this all very interesting): Does the UCAS honor rulings made by the United States Supreme Court?

QUOTE (Shadows of North America - page 169)

US Supreme court decisions are considered binding precedents in UCAS law.

It leaves little room for debate here.

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Jun 12 2004, 08:18 PM

QUOTE (Inquisitus @ Jun 11 2004, 04:36 PM)

This actually brings another legal question to mind (not having a copy of SoNA I find this all very interesting): Does the UCAS honor rulings made by the United States Supreme Court?

Funny you should ask.

Yes. The UCAS judiciary would still follow U.S. and Canadian federal case law. Ironically, because the U.S. Supreme Court says so. Back in the 19th century, the question arose of exactly whose common law applied given that the U.S. Constitution recongizes cases in law and equity (common law). The Supreme Court's answers was: The British Common Law before 1789. The states' own common law couldn't apply, to the supreme sovereign of the U.S., but there had already a quite well-developed body of common law from Britain that the states used: The British law.

There are also a few states whose common law incorporates certain aspects of U.S. federal (and thus pre-1789 British) common law to a point from when they were territories before became states.

Because Article III of the UCAS Constitution is ostensibly the same until otherwise noted differently in canon, the UCAS judiciary would follow the existing common law at the time--the U.S. and Canadian national common law. In which case, the UCAS Supreme Court (which was comprised of god knows who) would have to spend most of its first terms dealing with circuit split issues involving which national common law to apply (which can be a really big deal) because now we have two sovereigns merging together.

Oh, and since Canada is a commonwealth, does that mean more British common law has been adding to the federal judiciary's complement of powers? Don't know, but it's important. Hell, just the fact that Canada didn't become a Dominion apart from the direct rule of Britain until 1867 would have an effect on how much British law applies until then.

Overall, it would be critical for the UCAS Judiciary to have access to the common law of both countries, but especially the U.S. common law. Why? Marbury v. Madison. Without existing common law, they'd have to articulate that all over again, and what would happen if there was never Marbury.

However, one of the first opinions put forth by the UCAS Supreme Court would have grandfathered in someone's case law, and since SoNA mentions it, the U.S. got their federal case law in. Canada OTOH probably got screwed.

Posted by: Warmaster Lah Jun 13 2004, 02:18 AM

Where does the Shaiwase decisions fall into this? (Extratero..I cant spell today.)

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Jun 13 2004, 04:35 AM

It is U.S. federal case law, and would be grandfathered into UCAS federal case law.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jun 13 2004, 07:01 PM

Right, unless there is a new law written to address something, then the old law just carries over. Siunce someone invoked US history, look at the bill of rights, the first 10 ammendments to the US constitutuiono were changes to things they didn't like in the British laws that had previously been in place, but there was no need to address slavery one way or the other because they just carried over the existing laws, and only got to the changing that when there was a need to change the status quo.

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Jun 14 2004, 01:44 AM

Congress has tried to overrule a SCOTUS decision at least once a generation on a Constitutional issue.

And at least once a generation SCOTUS promptly beats them about the head and body in response, telling them that if they are so concerned, to amend the Constitution. Statutory interpretation, OTOH, is a little more flexible (such as the response to the snail darter decision).

In this context, Shiawase and Seretech were AFAIK based on Constitutional grounds.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Jun 14 2004, 02:08 AM

The Supreme Court can overturn it's own decisions without Constitutional changes, though.

IIRC, the Gideon v. Wainwright case overturned a previous ruling that said the Constitution did not guarantee Right to a Lawyer. The court felt that a fair trail in serious legal cases required a lawyer to be fair and just, even though it had previously claimed otherwise. Time changes the meaning of words, and the Court reinterprets the words to suit the current climate.

Public radio had a discussion about http://www.wbez.org/DWP_XML/od/2004_06/od_20040602_1100_2424/episode_2424.ram that I found awesome.

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Jun 14 2004, 02:33 AM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten)

The Supreme Court can overturn it's own decisions without Constitutional changes, though.

Indeed. The most famous probably being Brown reversing Plessy.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jun 14 2004, 08:47 PM

I'm not saying they couldn't. But they actually have to make the change or what was in place keeps going, like how Dred Scott kept slavery in place until the 13th ammendment.

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Jun 14 2004, 11:28 PM

Um... I never said nor implied you were wrong.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jun 15 2004, 05:07 PM

True, but someone might have read your post as saying the US regularly revisits this stuff, which they don't.

Someone asked baout Canadian law. From the comments in NAGtNA my guess is Canadian law pretty well got shafted. Considering how little of Canada was left after NAN and Quebec left, my guess is they didn't have too much to hope for except being rescued by the US

Posted by: LaughingTiger Jun 15 2004, 08:12 PM

I don't really have anything to add, I just want my named associated with this thread so I can sound this smart.

So yeah, Brown and Plessy.. important thing there. Very important thing there....

*adds to his resume*

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Jun 15 2004, 09:01 PM

hahaha

That would be a poor assumption on their part. Generationally, it may happen soon if there's a sudden shift in the Court. Sometimes it takes 25 years (Grutter addressing Bakke), sometimes 60 (Brown reversing Plessy), but most of the time it is sniping at little things over time to how we got from Roe v. Wade to Casey in 20 years, or the line of four or five cases in the 90s which gutted the concept of punitive damages.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Jun 16 2004, 12:33 AM

Or it can take more than four score and seven years- Founding of the nation to 13th ammendment.

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Jun 16 2004, 02:15 AM

Indeed, if SCOTUS had anything to do with that. But Dred Scott had been good law for twenty years when the Thirteenth overturned it, because only passing 13 could overturn it.

But I'm done with this thread. This is useless information for SR.