Amendment regarding the SC

[wizardofoz01]

Nope, it's not an amendment to change or scuttle the SC. This regards something that I have thought is incongruous in our political system -- Ministers can sit on the SC..

Now, we all know the SC is for regional emergencies and for endorsing/supporting any actions taken by a Minister with regards to any Delegate endorsement problems, etc.. Personally, I find it somewhat unusual and perhaps a threat to separation of powers that Ministers can vote on a proposed action of a fellow Minister regarding a security threat. This is especially relevant because of Cabinet Meetings.. Since all Ministers attend these meetings, a proposed action against nation A due to security reasons may come up.. If some of those VERY SAME Ministers are members of the SC, would they not have an intrinsic bias to vote for the proposed action? At the very least we can say that they are not completely unbiased, simply because they are "closer" to the proposal, to coin a phrase. To draw a parallel in US government, we don't have members of the President's Cabinet voting in Congress on bills the President would like to see passed.

The SC is supposed to be the voice of the people in an unfiltered form. Putting people on the SC that are already Ministers seems to be philosophically against that, in my view.

My proposal would do the following -- candidates MAY declare for both a Ministerial position and a SC position. However, if they win their Ministerial post, they automatically forfeit their SC position and the person in the SC race with the next number of votes takes their place. This way, we do not restrict people by saying they may only declare for SC or a Ministerial job, but it is perhaps more cohesive than voting for Ministers and Delegate first, and then holding separate SC elections later.

Initial proposed language:

Section 4: Rules and Requirements for the Cabinet of the Regional Government.

1) To stand for elected office, a candidate must be a member Nation of The North Pacific (as outlined in Article II, Section 1 of this Constitution ). UN membership is not required, but it is recommended. Nations with UN membership should reside within The North Pacific unless active in the North Pacific Army.
2) The Nation must be a member Nation of the Region, and be an active Regional off-site forum member for a minimum of one month prior to the date of the acceptance of a nomination to, or a declaration of candidacy for, elective office. Should a member Nation be inactive or leave the Regional off-site forum for a period of three weeks or more, they shall be required to become and remain active in the Regional off-site forum for at least one week following their return before that Nation may accept any nomination to, or declare itself as a candidate for, any office.
3) Cabinet members shall not hold more than one Cabinet-level position at the same time.
4) Cabinet members shall not violate the term limitation provisions of Section 3 of this Article of the Constitution.
5) To stand for election as the Minister of Defense, a candidate shall have received the endorsement of a majority of the nations then in active service in the North Pacific Army within seven days prior to nomination or declaration of candidacy. Members of the North Pacific Army may endorse one or more candidates that stand for election as Minister of Defense in the same election.
6) No Cabinet member shall hold a seat on the regional Security Council during his or her Ministerial term.

The above is from Article III on Requirements for elected officials.

A - The registered voters shall elect a Security Council. The Speaker shall serve as the presiding officer of the Council. The Council shall have authority to endorse or otherwise approve such actions of an urgent or emergency nature that involve regional security other than the adoption of legislative bills and constitutional amendments as are specified in this Constitution and The North Pacific Legal Code. Any action by the Council does not supercede any requirement for approval by a referendum within the Regional Assembly or of the registered voters, but serves as approval for action prior to such a referendum.
B - The Security Council shall be composed of not fewer than five registered voters who are members of the Regional Assembly, elected for three month terms at the same time as the Cabinet, Speaker, and the UN Delegate. The total number of Council members shall be determined by law, but shall not be less than five nor more than that whole number which equals ten percent of the total number of registered voters at the time the nomination period for elections commence. The members of the Council shall be elected by plurality vote of the registered voters in the manner prescribed by law.
C - Registered Voters elected to serve on the Security Council shall arrange their affairs during their term of office on the Council so that they may participate in any matter brought to the Council upon notice not to exceed 24 hours. A quorum for the actions of the Security Council shall be not fewer than three registered voters as determined by law. The Speaker shall not have a vote in Security Council matters except in the case of a tie, but the Speaker shall count to the establishment of a quorum for a particular matter.
D - Candidates for Cabinet-level positions are allowed to declare their intention to run for a seat on the Security Council in the same election cycle. Such candidates who are victorious in their respective races will then forfeit their prospective seat on the Council, effecting an automatic withdrawal from the Council race. If this produces a fewer number of Security Council electees than mandated by law, the aforementioned Ministerial candidate(s) with the highest number of votes shall be elected.
E - In the cases of tie votes which involve one or more Ministerial race winners and one or more non-Cabinet Registered Voters, a runoff shall take place as prescribed by law. Rules from Section D shall apply in all runoff elections.

 

[wizardofoz01]

Consensus of the debate on s2 on this appeared to be favorable.

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

I agree with the amendment. Have enough of the RA members from the S2 board arrived here to consider this for a formal discussion/vote?


R

 

[Unterwasserseestaat]

The SC is supposed to be the voice of the people in an unfiltered form.

Is it? I'd think that something called a 'security council' would be a group to take care of matters too urgent for the entire group to take up. Theoretically, they're trusted enough to be elected to speak for the entire group.

Is this, in broader terms, a problem of mixing two branches of government? If we don't have a problem with Ministers being in/voting in the RA, should we have a problem with Ministers trusted enough to speak for the RA itself in an emergency? I'm not against having some degree of mixing, but we should have a reason why that particular level is preferred.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I'm still not convinced that a change from the current language is essential.

When I drafted the original proposal, my conception was that the security council would be, in effect, a council of elders who convened on behalf of all of the registered voters and regional assembly members to authorize actions on behalf of the region which may be required prior to the time frame in which actions may be authorized under other constitutional and statutory procedures. It would be unnecessary for the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, or the Delegate to be elected to the council, and the Speaker is designated as the chair.
My belief was that the voters would elect those who they most trusted to act for the welfare of the region in such circumstances. It was also my feeling that excluding candidates for the Cabinet was unnecessary because the basis of membership on the Council was not a legislative committee as such, but rather a body representing the entire electorate. If a well-regarded and trusted member of the region is serving in one of the other Cabinet offices, why shouldn't their experience and counsel be available on the security council?
Philosophy aside, the current proposal also suffers from considerable ambiguity especially with the changes being proposed to Article IV, Section 9 . It needs a lot of work to avoid all sorts of interpretative problems in its implementation. I would urge that the proposed language be revised so as to remove those ambiguities. For these reasons, I cannot support the proposal in its current form.

 

[Nikovakia]

How it was designed isn't how its been working.

Additionally, I think its a problem when both judges sit on the SC. They are making decisions about information that can potentially become a legal matter that the defendant won't have access to. It negates the idea of an impartial court.

 

[wizardofoz01]

Is it? I'd think that something called a 'security council' would be a group to take care of matters too urgent for the entire group to take up. Theoretically, they're trusted enough to be elected to speak for the entire group.

Is this, in broader terms, a problem of mixing two branches of government? If we don't have a problem with Ministers being in/voting in the RA, should we have a problem with Ministers trusted enough to speak for the RA itself in an emergency? I'm not against having some degree of mixing, but we should have a reason why that particular level is preferred.

The SC DOES take care of urgent matters; however the Constitution specifically mentions that an SC position is not an "official" government position in the same sense that a Cabinet position is. In that light, when RA members elect SC members, it is not the same electoral representation than when RA members elect a PM. We are merely entrusting certain of our members to see/verify/approve emergency actions. The SC is the only conduit by which the RA can be informed about emergency decisions.

In my mind, there is no problem clearly with ministers voting in the RA -- I would argue that Ministers are members of this region first, and Ministers second. However, they ARE of a different "tier" than regular RA members. So when Ministers also sit on the SC, then it seems to me that there is a mixing of branches going on.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that "Since Ministers are entrusted by the members of this region, they can be on the SC". By that logic, we may as well have Ministers run the entire government and the UN delegate position as well.