#bad precedent

Sad to report that the chair of Glasgow 2024 has refused to enact the incapacity clause against Chengdu 2023. The defence is that the clause uses the word "current Worldcon", and since the Hugo Administration hid what they had done till now they have run out the clock and evaded action. They decline to state if they think Chengdu 2023 satisfied it's obligations to the WSFS. They instead suggest the issue should be brought up at the next Business Meeting. (Reminder, WSFS Business meetings only occur at Worldcons, require physical presence at the meeting, prior written notification of business to be conducted with a second signing the motion, and the Meetings are strictly conducted under Robert's Rule of Order with the WSFS Presiding Officer having complete control of the floor, and anything that is more substantive than a non-binding resolution means doing it all over again in a year's time to get it ratified.)

I have asked the chair of Glasgow 2024 and the WSFS Presiding officer of 2024 to clarify on what date Chengdu 2023 stopped being the Current Worldcon, and where this is defined in the WSFS. However, the last reply from the chair included the phrase "This correspondence is therefore closed." and that does not indicate I will receive a reply.

My reading of this is that it doesn't. And we are currently in a hazy hinterland where the WSFS constitution has not clearly defined what "the current Worldcon" means. So if they chose, they could enact the Incapacity Clause.

I think the "Current Worldcon" reading used to prevent enacting of the incapacity clause is a terrible precedent. It basically says "Just hide your failures, run out the clock, then nothing can be done and your decisions will stand." And it renders the Incapacity Clause a dead letter, if the Current Worldcon insists it will be able to perform it's duties, but then does not do so.

Trump Reelection Speech–IRS Attacks

The 2016 platform on which I was elected your president said that “To guard against hypertaxation of the American people in any restructuring of the federal tax system, any value added tax or national sales tax must be tied to the simultaneous repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, which established the fed­eral income tax.”I am…

THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION SWOOPED ON THE 140+ APARTMENT COMPLEX, WHICH HAD ENCROACHED THE RAJA KALUVE, TRIED TO REMOVE THE PORTION OF THE COMPLEX, BUT DUE TO SOME EXTERNAL FORCES, THE RECOVERY DELAYED.

AS USUAL, THE BUILDER IS VERY HONEST AND HAS PERFECT TITLES AND MIGHT BE APPROACHING THE COURT FOR A STAY. BUT AFTER FEW YEARS, THE APARTMENTS WHICH HAD ENCROACHED WILL HAVE TO GO.  IT IS ONLY A…

It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland. ... The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states. [+]

[...] This new claim that evidence is not required to kill someone is the true foundation of Too Big To Curtail. To really appreciate how extreme the whole concept is, understand that it is already blatantly illegal for a president to execute an American citizen without so much as a indictment. Indeed, if the constitutional notion of “due process” means anything at all, at minimum it means at least being formally charged with a single crime.

But in the new white paper, the Obama administration isn’t just laying waste to that most basic of ideas — it is going further and insisting that even within the extra-constitutional “kill list” deliberations inside the White House, the president doesn’t actually need evidence to order someone’s death.

This, of course, creates a legal architecture to justify the administration’s heretofore shocking declaration that, according to the New York Times, “it in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.” It also explains why Obama’s spokesman said the president was justified in executing a 16-year-old U.S. citizen simply because the kid “should have [had] a far more responsible father.” According to the Justice Department white paper, those killings are all now perfectly legal because supposedly the law “does not require the United States to have clear evidence” in order to kill anyone, much less posthumously identify them as a threat.

In the context of the administration’s other high-profile legal moves, this is nothing short of a tectonic shift in long-term jurisprudential standards. When it comes to Obama campaign contributors on Wall Street, Too Big to Jail means no amount of overwhelming evidence can prompt a single white-collar prosecution, regardless of the scope of financial terrorism. Meanwhile, when it comes to any U.S. citizen the president unilaterally deems a terrorist, Too Big to Curtail means that not a single shred of actual evidence is needed to not just to prosecute him, but to outright execute him.