The Minister for Defence Bill

Alunya

Alunya

TNPer
TNP Nation
Alunya
Withdrawn by Author

For the purposes of establishing one (1) Minister for Defence by correcting some minor errors:

The Minister for Defence Bill:
Chapter 8, Clause 1, sub-clause (e) of the Codified Law of The North Pacific shall have the word defense struck and the word defence substituted in its place.
Revised:
  • e. To implement regional defence and diplomatic policies as adopted under the laws of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Chapter 8, Clause 2 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific shall have the word defense and the phrase Minister of Defense struck and the word defence and phrase Minister for Defence substituted in their places respectively.
Revised:
2. The NPA is always permitted, consistent with adopted regional defence and diplomatic policies, to deploy under the following circumstances:
  • a. To counter or preemptively stop:
    • A direct threat to the North Pacific;
    • A direct threat to a North Pacifican ally;
  • b. To assist a region or organization as permitted by the delegate, an existing treaty, or the Minister for Defence;
  • c. Upon the orders of the appointed Minister for Defence or a person thus delegated to act in their name; and
  • d. The Regional Assembly may mandate that the NPA follow through on a declaration of war or a policy approved by the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
Chapter 8, Clause 4, sub-clause (b) of the Codified law of The North Pacific shall have the phrase Minister of Defence struck and the phrase Minister for Defence substituted in its place.
Revised:
  • b. Any NPA member may refuse to take part in any mission which does not directly impact TNP security for any reason that the Minister for Defence or the Delegate determines is reasonable.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As our laws currently stand we have a Minister for Defence, Minister of Defense and a Minister of Defence. I have proposed substituting the phrase Minister for Defence, which occurs the most frequently, for the other two titles. And to maintain consistency, I have proposed substituting defence for defense.

>^,,^<
Alunya

Edited: For withdrawal
 
I'm sorry, but some of us prefer the current spelling. It is not a correction bill but a bill to enact one form of English spelling over another. Are you planning to impose all those excessive "u"s upon us next?
 
The 'U's aren't excessive to be fair.

That being said, I don't see the point in this bill. It's not correcting anything, it's just changing it to wording that for some is normal and for some is not.
 
I am every bit of an American as you are, and I personally prefer Secretary of Defense. However, as tradition is incredibly important to The North Pacific, and the predominant spelling throughout the Constibillicode is defence and the predominant phrase is Minister for Defence, then that is what I went with. What we have at present is inconsistent; let's fix that.

>^,,^<
Alunya
 
Do we really need to be so dismissive to people who are actually interested in proposing legislation?

It is not the spelling of "Defense", but rather the fact that the terms in the legal code are inconsistent. It is a small fix, admittedly, but it is not a bad idea at all.

It is a correction bill.

Try reading the proposed changes next time instead of rushing to shoot it down.
 
Personally, I would be all in favor if the s-spelling were used. But because it proposes the c-spelling, I must heartily oppose it. :P
 
Correction implies an error. This is an 'edit' for consistency. Either spelling of the word in question is acceptable. Unless we legislate that too.
 
If this is a correction bill, why can't we use CoE's law that just past to "fix" this? Hmm..looking at that bill i'm not sure if it covers text minor errors or just numbering errors.

Anyway, I don't favor this bill. I don't think we have to chose here just like favourite means favorite no matter what English speaking country you're from. I think this is unnecessary.
 
I feel I ought to echo DD's point. This is essentially a tidy-up bill, and fairly uncontroversial. The level of hostility that greeted it is unbecoming.

I think we should stick with the "defense" spelling, since that was the spelling used by the Allied Defense Network, and is therefore more in keeping with the tradition of this region.
 
My recently passed bill does indeed only cover numbers.

Looking at the laws, there's nothing saying we are restricting to up/down votes on a single version of a bill. We could, if the Speaker permitted it, hold a vote on several alternate versions, and treat the results like an election. The winning version would have to win by a majority vote, of course.

Alunya, what do you think of that idea? Can we get an opinion from the Speaker on that?
 
falapatorius:
Correction implies an error. This is an 'edit' for consistency. Either spelling of the word in question is acceptable. Unless we legislate that too.
Click to expand...
You can try whatever semantic gymnastics you want, but the bill is correcting an inconsistency. :eyeroll:

Is it really outside the realm of consideration to want terms in our legal code to be consistent?

Minister of Defense, Minister of Defence, Minister for Defence, what does it matter which, as long as there is only one? Right now there is an ambiguity in the law that could mean that we should have two Ministerial positions related to defence.
 
Ironically we used to have a chapter on constitutionally mandated ministries that defined exactly what minister we need in this area but that seems to have been written out of our laws in the recent past.

If it's not a mandated ministry then it's entirely up to the elected delegate.

I do agree that Tradition ought to be followed. I'd like it to be whatever it was originally called.
 
Do people read the actual OP, or just the commentary? It is even in the topic description "To establish one (1) Minister for Defence". This bill is to make the language consistent. It's not about the spelling of "Defence"!

Alunya even posted saying they chose "Defence" because it is what is used most in our legal documents. Then stated "What we have at present is inconsistent; let's fix that.".

The reason they chose "Defence" is because it is what is deemed "traditional" here based on its usage, because their last bill was poo-pooed for being against tradition.
 
DD I'm not sure you're seeing the implications of what you're saying.

It implies we had a minister of defense from 2005-2013 and then we didn't have one anymore, but we did have a minister for defence which does the same thing.

It's breaking continuity, that sucks.

edit: corrected defense to defence because I forgot they are two different spellings... since they do mean the same thing you know.
 
Perhaps we should rename the military area Ashatweville since Tresville was never minister for defence?

For consistency, of course.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
The reason they chose "Defence" is because it is what is deemed "traditional" here based on its usage, because their last bill was poo-pooed for being against tradition.
Click to expand...
That's not actually what Alunya said. They said that the term "Minister of defence" is used more times than the other two, and proposed changing all usage of "defense" to "defence" in order to have a consistent spelling. That's not asserting that either "minister of defence" or "defence" is traditional, just making a numerical statement. And really, it's more indicative of who wrote various parts of the Constibillocode than any sentiments about tradition.

Alunya, I for one really would prefer to standardize on "Minister of Defense". Are you open to making that amendment to your proposal?
 
I'm going to try to be polite to you, as you are sensitive, but you are making it difficult for me.

This bill is quite simple. Currently, the legal code lists both a Minister of Defence and a Minister of Defense. Do we have both? No! So this bill wants to correct the inconsistency in terminology.

It has nothing to do with the preferred spelling of "defense", or continuity.

I am flabbergasted that the intent of this bill is so hard to grasp.
 
SillyString:
That's not actually what Alunya said. They said that the term "Minister of defence" is used more times than the other two, and proposed changing all usage of "defense" to "defence" in order to have a consistent spelling. That's not asserting that either "minister of defence" or "defence" is traditional, just making a numerical statement. And really, it's more indicative of who wrote various parts of the Constibillocode than any sentiments about tradition.

Alunya, I for one really would prefer to standardize on "Minister of Defense". Are you open to making that amendment to your proposal?
Click to expand...
"Based on its usage" was the most important part of my sentence. They aren't making the "tradition" argument themselves, merely trying to accommodate our need not to have anything change drastically in terms of name. :P

I am in agreement on your amendment.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
My recently passed bill does indeed only cover numbers.

Looking at the laws, there's nothing saying we are restricting to up/down votes on a single version of a bill. We could, if the Speaker permitted it, hold a vote on several alternate versions, and treat the results like an election. The winning version would have to win by a majority vote, of course.

Alunya, what do you think of that idea? Can we get an opinion from the Speaker on that?
Click to expand...

I had considered submitting four (4) such bills similar to what I introduced:

Bill No. [c] Corrected Phrase [c] Corrected word [c]1[c]Minister for Defence[c]defence[c]2[c]Minister of Defence[c]defence[c]3[c]Minister of Defense[c]defense[c]4[c]Minister for Defense[c]defense

My concern was that introducing four bills would lead to absolutely none of them passing as each would garner a minority that supports their favorite/favourite spelling and preposition (for/of) to the detriment of all others. That would leave the error(s) uncorrected.

As I said, I personally prefer Secretary of Defense. I also felt Minister for War would accurately reflect the position and avoid the spelling controversy. But I felt I would face stiff resistance from the Old Guard if I strayed too far from the terminology already incorporated in the Codified Law of The North Pacific.

So I took the most frequently used phrase (Minister for Defence) and most frequently used spelling (defence) and set upon correcting the other terms. Minister for Defence and defence are the most prevalent and traditional terms used in the Codified Law of The North Pacific.

I'm for making the corrections in line with the traditions of The North Pacific. If the Regional Assembly should decide they don't like the traditional terms, then we'll know that at the end of the vote. Only then should we get to the serious business of making mountains out of molehills -- and I'll feel free to advocate for Secretary of Defense in all the clamor (or perhaps clamour.)

>^,,^<
Alunya
 
Thank you for trying to be polite.

Semantics is hard to grasp. The title says to "establish" a minister for defence.

I agree with SillyString that numerical statements about usage in the text of the law is really a different thing to saying what is the correct term for the office.

The point I raised earlier is that the office no longer has any strong legal footing.

An earlier version of the law said:
24. There will be an Executive Officer charged with military affairs. They will carry out such legal missions as are authorized by the Delegate, expressly or categorically.

That made it quite clear what is the thing being referenced, whether it be called MoD or whatever they call it, didn't matter. Without that clause, somehow, we've reached a point where the RA is debating itself getting confused as to whether the Minister of Defense is the same as Minister for Defence or not.
 
There is the small fact of the legal code with the whole "North Pacific Army Doctrine" section which is inconsistent in its application of terms in relation to that specific Ministry.

SillyString was arguing that Alunya did not say that, which is true. I did, but I figured that Alunya was attempting to use the term that was used most often in the legal code to avoid the argument that what they were proposing was a slight to tradition. And yet, it still happened anyway.

Edit: In terms of the various uses in the legal code, it actually could be read as creating three separate positions that would actually have authority to do various things according to the legal code. Are you making the argument that the ambiguity isn't a bad thing, or not something worth addressing through legislation?

Please go read over Chapter 8 of the legal code and be sure to pay attention each time the phrase "Minister of [whatever]" is used and its context before you reply.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
There is the small fact of the legal code with the whole "North Pacific Army Doctrine" section which is inconsistent in its application of terms in relation to that specific Ministry.

Edit: In terms of the various uses in the legal code, it actually could be read as creating three separate positions that would actually have authority to do various things according to the legal code. Are you making the argument that the ambiguity isn't a bad thing, or not something worth addressing through legislation?
Click to expand...

Earlier today, Gladio posted his oath as Minister of Defense. To fully comply with our laws as they currently stand, he should post another oath as Minister for Defence and a third oath as Minister of Defence. Since he has not sworn those other oaths, legally he may only order the deployment of the North Pacific Army with regards to Chapter 8, Clause 2, sub-clause (c) of the Codified Law of The North Pacific. All the other powers are the preserve of the Minister for Defence and the Minister of Defence.

Let's just fix the law.

>^,,^<
Alunya
 
Chapter 8 is inconsistent within itself, I agree that's bad, but it seemed not to stop the RA voting for it.

Apparently the mandatory ministries law is still in effect. Sorry, I try not to read all the laws in one go.
Legal Code 6.3:
23. There will be an Executive Officer charged with military affairs. They will carry out such legal missions as are authorized by the Delegate, expressly or categorically.
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that the only references to that ministry are all in chapter 8.

Anyway the point is that chapter 8 doesn't define the ministry. The ministry is defined by chapter 6 on government regulations, by tradition, and by whatever the delegate says.

Thanks Alunya for pointing out the inconsistency, I just don't agree with what you're replacing it with and I look at it from a different perspective. I'm sorry if I explained this in a hostile way.
 
Alunya:
As I said, I personally prefer Secretary of Defense. I also felt Minister for War would accurately reflect the position and avoid the spelling controversy. But I felt I would face stiff resistance from the Old Guard if I strayed too far from the terminology already incorporated in the Codified Law of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind Minister of War, though I think it's somewhat inaccurate as TNP doesn't have a habit of declaring war. Minister of the Army (Navy?) might work, or Minister of the Military, or Minister of Military Affairs. Or something.

Secretary I think doesn't make sense, because it would break strongly with the general naming convention that the people running ministries are Ministers.

So... is that a no on the request to change your amendment to "Minister of Defense"?
 
I am withdrawing this bill.

What I have learned is that any nation that is not part of the inner circle should not introduce any bill at all in the Regional Assembly -- ever.

Even if it something as innocuous as to reconcile three titles into one for the same position.

It isn't worth the hassle.

One shouldn't buck "Tradition" for the sake of consistency and one shouldn't advocate "Tradition" for the sake of consistency. The North Pacific just should remain inconsistent; call it tradition or a historical accident, it doesn't much matter.

One of you old hands, if you wish, may introduce your own bill correcting the now evident discrepancies in whatever way suits your fancy. I'm fed up with the "not invented here" syndrome that prevails, so fix it yourselves, or not, as you see fit.

I'm washing my hands of it.

>^,,^<
Alunya
 
Sorry to say, I agree with you. Perhaps those who jumped on this bill from a great height might reflect on this thread next time the question is raised "why do we find it so hard to encourage new people in this region?"
 
Don't give up Alunya! You have so much left to draft. Like that one you were discussing with me. Not the renaming the NPA to the Brony Pony Army, the other one. ;)
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Im not in the Eluminatti and I propose bills all the time. Dont give up kitty, go poop in their shoes when they're asleep!
Click to expand...
Pooping in shoes is very unfastidious -- it is the sort of thing a dog would do. And as a cat, I like to recline cross-wise in the path. Who do you think they would use as a boot-scrape?

>^,,^<
Alunya
 
Alunya:
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Im not in the Eluminatti and I propose bills all the time. Dont give up kitty, go poop in their shoes when they're asleep!
Click to expand...
Pooping in shoes is very unfastidious -- it is the sort of thing a dog would do. And as a cat, I like to recline cross-wise in the path. Who do you think they would use as a boot-scrape?

>^,,^<
Alunya
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top