It is quite logical, but you missed the point.

US citizenship is not relevant to successor states (NCR, Legion etc.). It is relevant to anyone claiming to be a continuation of US government, as that implies that during the intervening years law still applied, even if the government remained inactive due to a lack of resources.

The example you used, India, is also completely irrelevant, as it's a complex issue that can't be reduced to a simple binary "Citizen/Non-citizen" situation. Basically, due to the nature of the British Empire, there is a great variety of types of citizenship and nationality that result from one's birth in a British colony/territory. IIRC, children born in India after it gained independence hold only Indian citizenship, but people who were born under British rule retain British citizenship, depending on their classification. As I said, it's very complex.

A better example would be the status of Poland between 1795 and 1918 and later between 1939 and 1945. Despite being literally wiped off the map, when the Polish state was reestabilished and citizenship was granted to those who were classified as Poles or requested it. It's even more evident during the Second World War, as despite losing official control over our territories to the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, the state prevailed underground and after the war citizenship was treated as never lost. Of course, communist persecution of survivors is a completely different issue.



And that Might Makes Right. His argument hinges on the assumption that a handful of warships in the ocean can do whatever they want, because no one can oppose them.



Uh, no, this is the point I've been hammering here: if the Enclave ceased to recognize laws of USA as they existed in 2077 and instead of aiding surviving US citizens it focused on its own cabal members, then it has ceased to be a legitimate governing body. Power comes from the people and is given to representatives of the people. If you piss on the people, you're a usurper and tyrant, slated for culling.

I don't believe there is plans that call explicitly for indefinite suspension. However there are plans which completely subvert much of the Consititution in favor of expediency.

Case in Point: Reagan's COG plan. Also known as: "The Armageddon Plan"

(Note not my words, simply an articles summary of the plan)

The outline of the plan was simple. Once the United States was (or believed itself about to be) under nuclear attack, three teams would be sent from Washington to three different locations around the United States. Each team would be prepared to assume leadership of the country, and would include a Cabinet member who was prepared to become President. If the Soviet Union were somehow to locate one of the teams and hit it with a nuclear weapon, the second team or, if necessary, the third could take over. This was not some abstract textbook plan; it was practiced in concrete and elaborate detail. Each team was named for a color?"red" or "blue," for example?and each had an experienced executive who could operate as a new White House chief of staff. The obvious candidates were people who had served at high levels in the executive branch, preferably with the national-security apparatus. Cheney and Rumsfeld had each served as White House chief of staff in the Ford Administration. Other team leaders over the years included James Woolsey, later the director of the CIA, and Kenneth Duberstein, who served for a time as Reagan's actual White House chief of staff.

As for the Cabinet members on each team, some had little experience in national security; at various times, for example, participants in the secret exercises included John Block, Reagan's first Secretary of Agriculture, and Malcolm Baldrige, the Secretary of Commerce. What counted was not experience in foreign policy but, rather, that the Cabinet member was available. It seems fair to conclude that some of these "Presidents" would have been mere figureheads for a more experienced chief of staff, such as Cheney or Rumsfeld. Still, the Cabinet members were the ones who would issue orders, or in whose name the orders would be issued.

One of the questions studied in these exercises was what concrete steps a team might take to establish its credibility. What might be done to demonstrate to the American public, to U.S. allies, and to the Soviet leadership that "President" John Block or "President" Malcolm Baldrige was now running the country, and that he should be treated as the legitimate leader of the United States? One option was to have the new "President" order an American submarine up from the depths to the surface of the ocean?since the power to surface a submarine would be a clear sign that he was now in full control of U.S. military forces. This standard?control of the military?is one of the tests the U.S. government uses in deciding whether to deal with a foreign leader after a coup d'?tat.

"One of the awkward questions we faced," one participant in the planning of the program explains, "was whether to reconstitute Congress after a nuclear attack. It was decided that no, it would be easier to operate without them." For one thing, it was felt that reconvening Congress, and replacing members who had been killed, would take too long. Moreover, if Congress did reconvene, it might elect a new speaker of the House, whose claim to the presidency might have greater legitimacy than that of a Secretary of Agriculture or Commerce who had been set up as President under Reagan's secret program. The election of a new House speaker would not only take time but also create the potential for confusion. The Reagan Administration's primary goal was to set up a chain of command that could respond to the urgent minute-by-minute demands of a nuclear war, when there might be no time to swear in a new President under the regular process of succession, and when a new President would not have the time to appoint a new staff. The Administration, however, chose to establish this process without going to Congress for the legislation that would have given it constitutional legitimacy.

Ronald Reagan established the continuity-of-government program with a secret executive order. According to Robert McFarlane, who served for a time as Reagan's National Security Adviser, the President himself made the final decision about who would head each of the three teams. Within Reagan's National Security Council the "action officer" for the secret program was Oliver North, later the central figure in the Iran-contra scandal. Vice President George H.W. Bush was given the authority to supervise some of these efforts, which were run by a new government agency with a bland name: the National Program Office. It had its own building in the Washington area, run by a two-star general, and a secret budget adding up to hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Much of this money was spent on advanced communications equipment that would enable the teams to have secure conversations with U.S. military commanders. In fact, the few details that have previously come to light about the secret program, primarily from a 1991 CNN investigative report, stemmed from allegations of waste and abuses in awarding contracts to private companies, and claims that this equipment malfunctioned.




And you can verify that the soldiers mind was not one of confusion rather than outright rebellion?

Perhaps they simply believed the LW represented a threat to the President and that Autumn had temporarily assumed command.



I'll agree with this. There is to much contradiction to define it 100% one way or the other.



Indeed. Which one is the correct version of Autumn?

Is it the loyal soldier or the rebellious one?

However, at the moment, there is more evidence to suggest that Autumn was loyal than that he wasn't. The affirmations of his loyalty to Eden occur after his flight from Raven Rock. Which suggests that while he did leave, he believed that he was doing it in the best interests of the Enclave and of Eden himself. The LW then attempts to convince him to give up loyalty to Eden.




Oh really?

So those Japenese-Americans who where sent to large internment camps aren't citizens? How exactly do you define "in the best interest of the US and her citizens" because that is the exact same argument the Enclave would make. You tread a fine line there. By giving the pre-war government (I'm mostly referring to the Fallout Universe) the right to do whatever it wanted to its citizens as long as it was "in the best interest of the U.S." then you are also giving the Enclave that right. So long as they make the argument.



Why would they have to recognize 200 year old borders in order to have any claim to legitimacy? Since when does a nation have to revert back to a state where "AT THIS POINT YOU CONTROLLED THIS" in order to be legitimate? Nations have won and lost land throughout history. Simply because, for instance, the Ottomann Empire lost nearly all of its territory in the middle east after WWI suddenly means that its government was illegitimate. That's flat out ridiculous. You are working under the very flawed assumption that North America is "the United States" and always will be. Therefore in order for a people to be the United States the North American landmass which was once its soviergn soil must be controlled.

That's incorrect. That's not how it works.

Point 2. You seem to fail to understand that the "descent" of U.S. citizenship only applies to your immediate family (ie. your mother and father). You can't claim to be a citizen simply because you have ancestors 200 years ago who were once citizens.

Furthermore, it would be absolutely foolish to claim that U.S. territory in the Fallout universe post-Great War includes its former continental area. Whether or not you believe the Enclave to be the government is irrelevant. If the Enclave aren't, then their is no American state left. Furthermore, if they are the government, then they have no control over the area and thus have no soverign claim to it. IE. it is not U.S. soil and anyone born in it post-great war is living in "former U.S. territory."



No. Its not.



What state? How exactly do you figure that U.S. former territories is still the United States?

What you are essentially arguing is comparable to saying that individuals living on the east coast have a right to British citizenship. After all, many of them are descendant from British citizens correct? And hey, they live in former British territory right? Its only been a little over 200 years after all. :rolleyes:

It was extensive enough for former residents of Vault 15 to be able to found the New California Republic. Vault 101 may have had a different educational program than Vault 15 but I see no reason to make that assumption.

Indeed. I was referring only to Vault 101's education system.

Vault 101 after all, was meant to stay closed forever, and with an "all-powerful" overseer, I doubt much information would have been given about "rule of the people." Education was probably limited more to technical skills and what was necessary to do work in the vault. History and politics wouldn't be amoung that.

I'm not saying I'm right of course. I'm just saying that we can't assume that the LW invariably knows the ins and outs of U.S. politics.

It's implied in dialogue with that Enclave supporter in Megaton and the Constitution quest (if you have high enough intelligence) that the Lone Wanderer has a firm grasp of America's history, he knows what the Constitution is and who Button Gwinnett was after all. Now there's no way of knowing for sure, but if the LW knows of these two things I see no reason to assume that the Vault 101 residents aren't taught extensively about US history and politics regardless of their Vault's role in the experiment.

In your haste to prove me wrong, you've missed a rather big, big part of the plan: assume leadership of the country. Not assume leadership over a select group of elitist bastards, not assume leadership over hand picked humans, assume leadership over the country, which includes ALL citizens. And the refusal to reestabilish Congress after the attack was only set up to maintain response speed and keep the leadership structure intact.

Was it unconstitutional? Yes, obviously so. But it was prepared in the best interests of the United States and its citizens, out of necessity. That's the core difference between the actions of the Enclave and actual COG plans. Actions taken in the interest of US citizens, particularly plans aimed to reduce the amount of chaos and destruction following a nuclear attack on US soil, even if they are done in breach of the Constitution, can be excused.

The Enclave is never stated to have done anything to reestabilish leadership over the country and help US citizens following the war. This would be expected from any organization that claims to be a continuation of the US pre-War government. Even if you assume that it was done "for the greater good" to rally forces, refusal to recognize descendants of US citizens as citizens (in accordance with federal law) and conspiracy to commit genocide on the remaining human population worldwide clearly show that breaches of Constitution cannot be excused, nor can criminal actions against the US and her citizens.



Occam's Razor. The President gave a clear, direct order not to attack or hassle him. Autumn only needed to tell his soldiers to ignore the order and kill the prisoner and they gladly obeyed. If the President was really such an authority, why didn't he immediately relieve Autumn of command, instead of ordering robots under his control to kill any and all Enclave troops they come across.



Which means we'll soon start going in circles



Both are equally credible, to be honest. In the exact same conversation branch he first indicates that he's loyal to Eden and one line later exclaims that he's the Enclave, not Eden. Check the GECK if you don't believe me.

It's apparently a matter of preference. We can agree to disagree: I consider Autumn to be the true leader, only using Eden as a puppet as long as it serves his own goals for the Enclave (estabilishing it as an actual government in the DC area, picking up the pieces after the US government).




Examine the deeds, not the claims. Decisions made by mid-20th century US government were made to reinforce national security (internment of Japanese-Americans) and test new nuclear war doctrines. Granted, they were overkill and pretty bad calls in hindsight, but were made for the benefit of the United States as a whole.

A similiar statement is to be made for pre-2077 US government. Given the amount of Chinese infiltration on the eastern seaboard of the United States (uniformed Chinese commandos with headquarters in Arlington, listening posts under the Pentagon and in outlying DC areas, safehouses in Washington, Pittsburgh and Point Lookout etc.) along with a tendency for the Chinese to engage in diversionary attacks (the timeline makes explicit mention of Chinese biological attacks to which the PVP/FEV was supposed to be the answer) make the decision to arrest Chinese-Americans a harsh, but necessary decision in wartime.

As for experimentation on isolated communities in the Southwest, that's another case of deciding that the best interests of the US and its citizens necessitate allowing primary defense contractors (Big MT, West Tek etc.) to perform certain experiments on isolated settlements. Big MT terminals, however, make explicit mention that such experiments were conducted more or less with the consent of the subjects (eg. Hopeville, Sierra Madre etc.)

However, recognizing the pre-War government as acting in the best interests of the US isn't the same as recognizing the Enclave's right to do so. The primary error in your reasoning is that you equate the Enclave with the US government, without anolyzing their status.

The US government was elected by US citizens and recognized their duties and responsibility to the United States and all of its citizens.
The Enclave government was elected by members of the Enclave and recognized their duties and responsiblity to the Enclave and its citizens.

You'd have a point if the Enclave government was elected by members of the Enclave, but recognized their duties and responsibility to the United States and all of its citizens (which is what Autumn wanted to do). However, since it does not recognize US mainland inhabitants as citizens (despite them being descended from citizens), it's not the government, despite their claims.



The Empire lost its territory because that was agreed upon during the peace conference following World War I. That was one of the provisions of the Wersal treaty, along with the disarmament of Axis powers and reestabilishment of Poland. There was no agreement after the nuclear war, hence the most recent borders and laws apply.

I'm also amused by your "landmass must be controlled" claim. By your logic, the United States territory only extends as far as the area it controls, meaning large areas of the Midwest and other hard-to-reach areas are not US territory.



So you're smarter than the professors who taught me?



It's entirely relevant to determining whether the Enclave is a legitimate continuation of the United States government.

If it is a continuation of the US government, that means that the government never ceased to exist and citizenship continued to be granted automatically to children of US citizens. This is something you completely fail to understand: US citizenship is granted automatically to children of US citizens (who the Constitution defines as children of US citizens and people born in the US territory). The Constitution does not limit it to immediate descendants and expressly prohibits the Congress from making changes to this regulation.

Article V of the Constitution also effectively prevents changes to the Constitution that have not been ratified by conventions in 3/4 of member states. While it does give the Congress final jurisdiction in terms of territorial control and defining of borders, it also limits it solely to the United States Congress set up in accordance with constitutional provisions. Any political body calling itself the US Congress, but set up in violation of the Constitution is illegal and any law passed by it is automatically null and void.

I am at a loss as to how to communicate it clearer: there is absolutely no legal possibility for the Enclave to be the continuation of the US government. My entire point is that if we assume that the United States ceased to exist in October 2077, then the Enclave cannot be the US government, merely just another band of raiders with fancy technology. To claim governance over the United States is to take up all responsibilities of the government, recognize 2077 borders and laws and serve the people of the United States. ALL of the people, not just a select bunch of bastards on an oil rig in the Pacific.



I've spent five years of my life studying law and am an University educated lawyer. What's your background in law to make such claims?

If you want to check, contact the Law and Administration Faculty on the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan. I've graduated October 2011, album no. 316983.



Because no act of law was passed by the United States Congress that renounced sovereign control of the United States over its territory?

As for your absurd claim, British citizenship is regulated in a completely different way than American citizenship and no, Americans do not have any rights to British citizenship, as British law in the 18th and 19th century did not permit such a possibility.

Okay Tagaziel. First off, let me say that I apologize for being an extremely arrogant bastard in this debate. I'm afraid its something of a flaw in my character and normally I try to remain civil in talks such as this one. This discussion however, has gotten too heated and its entirely my fault. So if you'lll accept my olive branch, I'd like to continue this debate by stating my position and how I view what we are talking about here, since I believe much of the hostility has arisen from miscommuncation on my part. I'll try to keep my head from here on out. If I am wrong after all, I'd like to correct it and have you help me to do that.

Next: In regards to Eden/Autumn. Its entirely up to you really to decide what you want to believe. I maintain Eden was the leader of the Enclave in Fallout 3 and you do not, truthfully we both could probably come up with sufficent evidence either way to support a claim. Partly this is due to the fact that we simply were not given enough facts in Fallout 3 due to defiencies in the writing. Just something we'll have to deal with until more information arrises.

Secondly, let me state what I believe the Enclave and its relationship to the wastelanders are:

1. The Enclave is not the wastelander's government. They have no authority to order them around or to enact legislation that the wastelanders would have to follow by law. Any control they have over them is simply maintained by right of conquest. Nothing more.

2. The Enclave is a self-governing body, thus, they do have authority over their own citizens. They are in effect an independent state, seperate from the wasteland and nations thereof.

Now that brings me to the debate on the citizenship of the wastelanders (assuming that the Enclave is the U.S. Government for the moment):

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe what you are saying is that the wastelanders have citizenship by stint of having ancestors who were U.S. citizens at the time of the Great War. Thus, when those individuals had children (or who were children) they were U.S. citizens as well. Then because these people were U.S. citizens, their children are U.S. citizens, and so on and so forth until 200 years later we get the current population of wastelanders. Here is where I find the point of contention, according to Title 8:



Here is where my knoweldge of the subject may be flawed, but this to me indicates that some residency in U.S. territories is required. Thus this is to prevent individuals who have never lived or worked in the U.S. from claiming citizenship even by aquisition through parentage.

Now I can predict what your response to this is going to be, because we've been having this debate all along: They have been living in U.S. soil thus they are citizens. Which brings me to my next point:

I'm assuming you recognize that if the Enclave is indeed the government, then they have lost de facto control of the nation. So then your ideas concerning the territory of the United States remaining as it was before the Great War is based on sovereignty de jure. Thus we find another point of contention:

My ideas here concern that normally, de jure control is viable only is regards to international recognition. Since there no longer is an international community aside from what we know of the nations existing in the wasteland, we can assume that this can no longer be done. Thus it falls to a senario when a nation loses territory by conquest or rebellion. The nations that replaced the territoritory lost (be it rebel factions or another large outside power) thus have de facto control of it. Now my feeling here is that the nation which lost the territory may continue to claim de jure control of the area. If there is an interational community, they may still continue to recognize that right. However, if there is no international community, no independent body to recongize or reject those claims, at what point is de jure control ended? Is that entirely up to the country? Or does it simply fade away with time?

Harkening back to the situation with the Enclave then (once again, bear with me in assuming their staus as govenrment) at what point is their de jure control lost? De facto control was ended the moment the Great War began, of that there can be no doubt. You say that there was no act of Congress which "gave up" control of the wasteland. Well what if there was? What if at certain point after being on the Oil Rig for a period of time (and losing most if not all communication with the mainland and having no recourse but to sit and wait) Congress officially ceded the territory the United States had formely held and recognized that they could no longer maintain control of it. The situation had simply become too dire. Fast-forward two hundred years and nations like the NCR have sprung up. Thus that control de jure or de defacto has been completley ended. This is where the Enclave decides to intitiate re-conqest of its former territory. Thus, with the cessation of territory, wastelanders have not been residing in U.S. soil, thus they are not citizens. This is what I believe happened.

Now let me consider another point, the enitireity of this dicussion has been concerning whether or not the Enclave is the legitimate government of the United States. You and I may have different ideas as to what this entails. For the most part, my definition concerns the Government of the United States as simply being the individuals in power. Thus, a "shadow government" is still "the government." So in effect, regardless of whether or not the individuals known as "the Enclave" are a blatant disregard of consitutional law, they are still the government by stint of being the ones in power. In other words, I feel that even if (for instance) today the United States would somehow switch from being a Federal Republic to a monarchy and the consitution ripped up, the monachy would still be the legitmate government based on the fact that they administer control. Would they be legimate based on the past constitution? No, but they would still be "the government."

----

Lastly, some conclusion. It think a point that also needs to be mentioned is that we are dealing with quite a bit of figurative speculation here. Because frankly, the Fallout Universe is enitirely speculation. Its a fictional world of "what ifs." We really have no idea for instance, what the status of the consititution or Federal law regarding citizenship was after 1950. We could be working off cliams and ideas that have no basis and no meaning whatsoever. Given the abbhorent state of affairs in the years up to the Great War it is very difficult to say. There were New Plague riots, citizens were killed, people experimented on, and shaddy corporate activies thoughout America. Not to mention that the state of world affairs was incredibly muddled, with much of Europe and the Middle East wiped out before even the Great War began.

So, to conclude. My point is I don't think we should disregard the Enclave's claims of being the United States Government so readily. Indeed, they may have consitutional mandate in the Fallout Universe. We simply don't know. Furthermore, if we are to assume that the laws regarding these affairs remained the same, there really is no precendent to what we are talking about here. Nothing like what occured in the Fallout Universe has ever happened (and hopefully it never will) so to assume that we can predict how these sorts of situations would be handled beyond speculation seems superfluous.

In any case these are my ideals. Take them how you will and discuss them how you want. I hope though, that I've made things a bit more clear in regards to where I stand. Furthermore I'd once again like to apologize for the hostiltity, my assumption that I am right was ill concieved and I have certainly been humbled.

Looking at the original topic (but moving away from the current debate), it's strange that a topic about a solution to the problems faced by the CWBOS has moved into a discussion about the Enclave. Is this because the Enclave are the solution compared to everything else, that no other solution is possible, or because there are few fans of the CWBOS? For me, the CWBOS appear to have few issues with the end of Fallout 3/ Broken Steel, they are finally aware of where the Eastern Supermutant threat comes from, that they've been looking for for over 20 years, they have defeated the other main faction in the area, they have the water from the purifier to extend leadership and aid to the rest of the Capital Wasteland, and they've even gained a lot of new technology, should they wish to patch things up with the Outcasts, or at the very least to buy themselves back in with the main BoS leadership.

What problems remain?

Don't worry, I like a good debate and you're a particularly good partner in discussion. We might not share the exact same views and the exchange might heat up sometimes, but I don't really consider you an enemy. Sorry if I sounded like that. It isn't really your fault either, I'm partially to blame to. But ad rem:

Deficiencies in writing are the core of the problem with the story, setting and characters in Fallout 3.

That's why it's hard to identify the exact position the Enclave has towards the wastelanders. Autumn seems to want to restore the US government peacefully, i.e. leverage the ample amounts of pure water to make the wasteland flock to the Enclave and rebuild. He actually wants to fight for the American people (which makes the main storyline even less logical).



De jure control matters as long as there is a country or its government that can claim control. Nuclear war is a special case, as it effectively causes a collapse of human civilization. If it wipes out governments and there is no one to claim sovereignity, a state effectively ceases to exist.

Enclave's position is special, because they claim to be a continuation of the pre-War American government. The aim of my arguments thus far was to disprove their claims, as they cannot, by any measure, be considered a legitimate government of the United States of America. Any group can pick up the American flag and wave it about, claiming to be the continuation of the government. However, for them to be an actual continuation and not a new group under old standards (see: Poland after 1945), they must pick up the pieces and continue the government's work as it started in 2077: recognize the current legal status of US mainland inhabitants. Help struggling communities by uniting them under a common banner, recognize sovereign states like the NCR and estabilish relations with them with the eventual goal of merging with them etc. Basically, do everything the US government would've have done after the War to foster the rebuilding of civilization. Remember: Continuation implies continuity, continuity of law and sovereignity etc.

That's my point: since the Enclave never did anything like that, then it cannot be any kind of government. They're just another group of raiders with fancy colours, symbols and tech.

As for the Enclave renouncing territorial claims, I've reviewed Richardson's dialogue file, which indicates the Enclave never did anything of the sort:



Meaning they're more illegitimate than Joffrey Baratheon.

As for the last part, it entirely depends on the people and the international community. If the American population supports the change and the monarchy is recognized by the international community, who's to argue? However, if the change is done against the wishes of the people, who then oppose it (or even revolt openly), then it is quite likely it wouldn't be recognized and the international community would lend aid to the revolutionaries to reestabilish the federal republic. The key point here is the will of the people. All power and governments come from the people and are estabilished for the people.



Again, don't worry about it (it's nice to see a well mannered person on the forums, though ). I feel it's always nice to speculate openly, since it's food for thought and sharpens wit and mind.



Owyn Lyons being a moron instead of a leader and members of his organization children playing at war? If it wasn't for plot armor, Lyons' BoS would've been stamped into the ground the moment one of them raised a laser rifle at an Enclave trooper. It's quite interesting to see kewlness override common sense and logic.

Well thank you. I appreciate that.



Yes, I agree completely.





I'm afraid we may just have to agree to disagree here then. Although I now better understand where you are coming from, I can't say that I agree with it. Although you do raise some good points that I may need to reconsider my own position on.





Now HERE is something we can both agree on. And so I raise my glass to you and say well said. :foodndrink: