Tresville for Prime Minister

AlHoma:
What do you feel is the best way to deal with Seperation of Governmental powers and Administrative powers.

I make reference to the recent discussion as to in what power did members of the board act in when dealing with a delecate situation with "The Pacific"
Click to expand...
Hmmm...good question.

Admins are responsible for the board....they have their own specific laws which they must uphold and maintain (TOS rules). The government has no power to change or effect how an admin acts when protecting the board (deletion, moving of TOS violations).

We trust our admins which is why they usually get elected to government offices. This makes it hard to differentiate between a Gov act or a Admin act in certain circumstances.

We have laws and procedures that already take care of any Misconduct or interference by an admin or Minister. The court is there to take care of these type of situations.

From what I have noticed, our Moderators usually specify why an action is taken. This specification would tell you whether it is a gov or MOD act.

The situation with The Pacific is just a big misunderstanding from what I read.

Do you believe that holding administrative powers over the entire board presents a conflict of interest in the running of the government?
Click to expand...
Not generally...perhaps in specific situations...but how many times does that really happen. The conflict occurs when an admin acts for the government (in a gov related situation) without permission from the cabinet or otherwise stipulated as a power in the constitution.

Since these conflicts do not occur frequently...my suggestion would be that we deal with them as they happen and propose legislation as needed. This will ensure that it does not occur again and cuts down on needless beurocracy.
 
I think I need to make a couple of observations, if I may.

As to the responsibility for external affairs. the thrice-amended Constitutional provision on the region's relationships with other regions and multi-regional organizations makes clear that both the Minister of External Affairs and the Prime Minister have authority in this area. TNP Law 9, even after its amendment in the Embassy Documents legislation (TNP Law 12) notes this duality of responsibility that either the MoEA or the PM can propose, seek amendment, or withdrawal from treaties and agreements. This provision was added in the Constitutional Convention, so when Blackshear's absences took place, during Tresville's second term (the first under the current revision of the Constitution) this was a newly implemented provision. Folks may not have realized at the time that the duality of responsibility existed, but it did and still does exist in the area of external relations.

Second. as to the PM's role more generally, the Constitution declares the PM to be the "head" of the government, and grants him all powers that are "necessary" and "proper" for him to exercise any responsibilities the PM has under the Constitution or the Legal Code. Certainly the necessity to assure that a Ministry continues to function when its Minister is unaccounted for or facing an unanticipated RL problem is an appropriate exercise of "necessary" and "proper" powers?
 
Wouldn't the section saying "unable to hold office" cover inactive Ministers such as Blackshear?! If not, then the Constitution is severely flawed as it does seem to require the absent Minister to grant the Deputy the job as interim Minister of that portfolio which is in itself ridiculous as by communicating with the Deputy the Minister is no longer inactive!! The other reason seems to be impeachment which was terminated as the nation was to CTE soon!! This is also ridiculous as the fact that the nation is going to CTE proves that the Minister was long-term inactive and unable to hold office meaning the Deputy should have stepped in to fill the gap as per the Constitution!!

I would tend to agree with DD's stance on this matter!! The proper course of action outlined in the Constitution was not followed and Tresville held 2 offices at one time which is unconstitutional or at the very least means he has held three offices in the past year prior to this election if he acted as MoEA for over half Blackshear's term!!

Grosseschnauzer: Tresville prevented the Deputy from taking over as per the Constitution!! Sure, the PM has a say in External Affairs but it does not say they take on both roles when there is a perfectly good Deputy ready to step up!!
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Second. as to the PM's role more generally, the Constitution declares the PM to be the "head" of the government, and grants him all powers that are "necessary" and "proper" for him to exercise any responsibilities the PM has under the Constitution or the Legal Code. Certainly the necessity to assure that a Ministry continues to function when its Minister is unaccounted for or facing an unanticipated RL problem is an appropriate exercise of "necessary" and "proper" powers?
Click to expand...
If he had done what was proper he would have appointed an interim Minister and then asked the RA to confirm the appointment. Also that's fairly ambiguous wording!

I believe I answered that query already. I stepped in to make sure the Ministry kept working. The deputy "replaces" the Minister if the Minister leaves....again...he did not officially leave!
Click to expand...

I'd say that starting impeachment proceedings is reason enough to declare the Minister incommunicando. That he was almost CTE is another fit reason. And I am very certain that you mentioned to the Cabinet at the time, of which I was part, that you would impeach those Ministers that were derelict in their duties.

I never stated that the Minister had to grant the deputy the right to succeed...
Click to expand...

Lets take a look at a previous statement made by you...emphasis mine

This gives this position [Prime Minister] the power to step into a Ministry to fill any void necessary if the deputy minister is not granted that right by its Minister.
Click to expand...

Nope....I post goals...i don't do much promising.
Click to expand...
I believe I kept both those promises.
Click to expand...
'

:P

I don't know where u get this "other month" from.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I ever used the words "other month". But if you were referring to my questioning why you would allow one of your Cabinet Ministers to get close to CTE before contemplating impeachment, then that's where it's from.
 
ahem...I did not take over those duties for half of Blackshears term....the dates are there. I believe your overdoing it there Polts...on a few instances. Acting in place of a Minister and being a Minister are two different things. But of course...that is overlooked.

This is also ridiculous as the fact that the nation is going to CTE proves that the Minister was long-term inactive and unable to hold office meaning the Deputy should have stepped in to fill the gap as per the Constitution!!
Click to expand...
How do u figure...the same thing happend a few weeks earlier and he returned. So, it doesn't prove anything. Your still ommiting the fact that the deputy would still not be able to assume all of the Ministers duties. Which is why I stepped up..and only remained as long as I needed to...and no more.
 
Oh, I almost forgot...in regards to invaders....Invaders can join the NPAA...no oath of office is required because the NPAA is TNP's standing Army.

I have already begun to recruit members to join. Hopefully we can fill the ranks up.
 
Tresville:
ahem...I did not take over those duties for half of Blackshears term....the dates are there. I believe your overdoing it there Polts...on a few instances. Acting in place of a Minister and being a Minister are two different things. But of course...that is overlooked.
Click to expand...
I posed it as a question as Grosseschnauzer seemed to circumnavigate the issue!! I did not look at the dates and the dates were irrelevent if we were to take GS' assessment as binding!! To me, acting in the role of the Minister is taking over, it sure seems to be for Deputies as if they do fill in for over half the term they are deemed to have served a term!!

How do u figure...the same thing happend a few weeks earlier and he returned.  So, it doesn't prove anything.  Your still ommiting the fact that the deputy would still not be able to assume all of the Ministers duties.  Which is why I stepped up..and only remained as long as I needed to...and no more.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't the Deputy be able to assume all the absent Minister's duties?! Is that not what they are there for?! The facts as they stand are, we had a Minister who was absent, their nation was about to CTE and we had a Deputy willing and able to step up as per the Constitution!! You prevented the Deputy from doing so and took on the Minister's role which is unconstitutional as far as I can ascertain!! Are you saying that the Deputy was so inept as to not be able to take over for the absent Minister?! I'd like this clarified!!
 
Later...i'm tired at the moment and the draft starts in a few hours.

Though I believe your question is irrelevant due to the fact i answered most of these question thouroghly already...I'll still play along and make it chrystal clear a lil later.
 
Just to clarify, it wasn't just the MoEA. AFAIK the MoD was also inactive and Tresville also took over that department for the entire term as well.
 
Since I wasn't involved during Tresville's previous position as PM, I can't comment on that. But I will ask a question concerning the upcoming term.

At what point would you consider a Minister inactive enough to warrent turning to the deputy? Can the deputy be given temporary control of the Ministry in order to wait for the Minister's return (assuming it was unplanned)? From watching things recently, it seems like the separation between deputy and Minister has been lessened a bit vs. what has been described above.

So, regardless of what you've done in the past, what do you think your stance would be this term on deputies and the assumption of an absent Minister's duties?
 
Ok, ok...golden question. What do you think is wrong with the current laws in regards to raiders and do you think that (at the current time) being a raider violates the constitution?

I want to be 100% sure about what your platform is, no sideways answers or anything. :ADN:
 
*kicks Tres* :P

and adds next question:

If a foreign region were to encroach on our regional soverignty, what would be your response as Prime Minister?
 
Sorry...my damn PSU on my comp died hard....i'm getting the part tomorrow so I should be back on regularly after that.


At what point would you consider a Minister inactive enough to warrent turning to the deputy? Can the deputy be given temporary control of the Ministry in order to wait for the Minister's return (assuming it was unplanned)? From watching things recently, it seems like the separation between deputy and Minister has been lessened a bit vs. what has been described above.

So, regardless of what you've done in the past, what do you think your stance would be this term on deputies and the assumption of an absent Minister's duties?
Click to expand...
Hopefully the deputy would know before hand when to step in and take care of certain responsibilities of their respective ministry. To solve any problems it is best if each Minister specify the deputies duties. If they work together and communicate I would expect the deputy to inform me when a minister is inactive enough to warrant the deputy taking over or starting the impeachment proceedings. I would always contact the deputy if the Minister is MIA...as I have done in the past.

As I asked Polts, if elected, what would be your stance in regards to the NPO?
Click to expand...
Well...I personally have no problems with them. I've always tried to keep things as copacetic as possible with the other feeders.

The PM may be able to effect foreign policy...but the decision is always up to the RA. I will support any stance that the majority of the RA members vote on...as I'm supposed to.

As long as no other region, gov or org attempts to inflence our government I really don't see a problem with keeping good relations.

Ok, ok...golden question. What do you think is wrong with the current laws in regards to raiders and do you think that (at the current time) being a raider violates the constitution?
Click to expand...
Most of the changes would have to be changes to the wording...main thing being the NPA Code which is a legal document. The whole section in the Legal Code regarding the NPA would have to change drastically. This would have to change as well:
B - Failure of a Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific and the North Pacific Legal Code.
C - Failure of a Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions is given to those Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

As I told you before the best thing to do is to get the RA to vote on making the NPA strictly a regional army and remove any references to the Invader/Defender aspect of the game. This would be done via a few legislative proposals.

Then the active defenders of the region may choose to create their own defender Org and it would no longer be regulated by government. TNP Gov would remain out of Defender/Invader affairs that do not directly involve TNP.

Now I know....your thinking...Great..now we can create a invader org within the region! That would be a problem due to this:

Preamble.

WE, the Nations of The North Pacific (TNP), mindful of the inherent rights to justice, security, democratic regional leadership and national sovereignty
Click to expand...

If a foreign region were to encroach on our regional soverignty, what would be your response as Prime Minister?
Click to expand...
My first response would be to alert the SC and cabinet and get some type of official statement from the Gov on the matter.

My personal response would be..."I don't think so...what the hell do u think your doing!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top