Proposed Amendment to the Constitution

Gracius Maximus

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
Proposed amendment to the Constitution detailing the creation of the Minister of Regional Security and removal of the Minister of Defense and Minister of Justice:

Items in RED are proposed to be removed. Items in BLUE are proposed to be added.

6) Minister of Regional Security.
A - The Minister shall be responsible for recruiting, organizing and directing the North Pacific Army for the protection of the region and its allies.
B - The Minister shall work with the Minister of External Affairs to identify threats to the security of the Region, and to advise the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on proposed strategic alliances for regional protection purposes.
C - The Minister shall appoint a District Attorney, which will carry the office of Deputy Minister of Regional Security, who will act as the chief prosecuting officer in The Court of The North Pacific, and shall exercise those responsibilities and duties imposed on the Attorney General under this Constitution and as provided in The North Pacific Legal Code. This office can remain vacant if the Minister chooses.
D - The Minister shall serve as District Attorney if the office is vacant in all necessary capacities under this Constitution and as provided in The North Pacific Legal Code.

5) Minister of Defense.
A - The Minister shall be responsible for recruiting, organizing and directing the North Pacific Army for the protection of the region and its allies.
B - The Minister shall work with the Minister of External Affairs to identify threats to the security of the Region, and to advise the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on proposed strategic alliances for regional protection purposes.

6) Attorney General, serving as Minister of Justice.
A - The Attorney General shall be the chief prosecuting officer in The Court of The North Pacific, and shall exercise those responsibilities and duties imposed on the Attorney General under this Constitution and as provided in The North Pacific Legal Code.
 
Shouldn't that be Deputy not Duputy?

Though I do worry that we are blurring the lines of Justice by having him as a Deputy Minister of that Office?
 
Since the Court and Justices are already quite separate from the Government there seems no reason why the duties of the Public Prosecutor (which is essentially what the Minister of Justice is now) should not be taken on by another Cabinet Minister.

I don't have time to look through all 20,000 pages but I suspect that some changes might need to be made to the wording of the Interim Court Rules, particularly those conerning the issue of Impeachment.

The Minister of Justice obviously can't currently act as a Prosecutor in his own impeachment so the wording must already exist it would just need to be amended to read Minister of Regional Security for those instances.

However, the Interim Court Rules are a matter for the Court not the RA so I suspect we need not concern ourselves too much with that. I'm sure the Court is well capable of keeping its documentation up to date with regard to Constitution changes.

Looks fine to me.
 
I have corrected the typo.

In regards to the other issues, Cathyy is correct, minor legislation and code, like the Court Rules, should conform to the Constitution.

I appreciate the support for these amendments thus far.
 
I'm not entirely comfortable with this proposal. I see the roles of DA and MoD as vastly different, and I don't fully understand the advantages to bringing the DA or AG under the auspices of the NPA.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I'm not entirely comfortable with this proposal. I see the roles of DA and MoD as vastly different, and I don't fully understand the advantages to bringing the DA or AG under the auspices of the NPA.
Click to expand...
While the two positions do seem to be different in application the overall reason for each is to maintain the integrity and security of the region as a whole. One is an external manifestation of our stability in that the NPA assists others in achieving the tranquility we possess here and the other is an internal control used to monitor and maintain said tranquility.

Joining the two not only addresses the need to consolidate some of the Cabinet into something more manageable in a shrinking world but also groups these like reasoned positions into a common field.

Granted, the best military leader in the region may not in fact be the best constitutional/legal scholar, but that is the reason for the Deputy position as it is proposed.

The Minister of Defense has not always automatically been the main director of the army here in the north. That position has often, from my observation, been handled by someone within the army structure itself. The Minister has often simply been either a figurehead or a bureaucrat in regards to liaison work with the Cabinet.
 
The Attorney General, while also acting as the Minister of Justice, is in fact intended to be an independent officer who is directly accountable to the voters of the region.

Even when the AG was first created within the old Ministry of Justice, the selection of the AG required approval by the Cabinet and (at that time) the registered voters of the region.....The same procedure currently used for the court justices.

Maybe a better change would be to make the AG totally independent of the Cabinet. It makes no sense to put defense of the region in the same basket as the prosecution of offenses. There is no logical connection between the two functions (they are really that dissimilar) and putting both functions in the same ministry would be a threat to the checks and balacnes of the constitutional system and concentrate too much power in one minister.
 
I disagree, as I stated above, that the two are wholly dissimilar in all aspects.

While I can see the value of maintaining an independent Judiciary, isn't that the reason the Judges are independently elected? Since the prosecution is by and large in most cases representing the interests of the government in regards to breaches of the Constitution should he or she have an interest in the government itself?

The Judges are independent and they are the ones making the final ruling. That seems sufficient.
 
I believe that combining these two roles into one ie that of Regional Security does make logical sense and they are certainly not as dissimilar as might appear as GM has quite clearly demonstrated.

However, based on what Gross has posted I can't say I see any need for there to be a Minister of Justice at all.

I can't really see that certainly in recent times that the Minister of Justice has done much besides make decision on whether to proceed with prosecutions which more seems to fit an AG or Public Prosecutor role.

Although they are, as GM, points out predominantly representing Government interests while prosecuting, I would prefer to see such a person not be part of the Government, because actually I want them to represent the interests of individual citizens, whether they are members of the Government or not.

So, another solution would be to elect an AG at the same time as the Cabinet elections but determine that the AG is not part of the Cabinet.
 
So, another solution would be to elect an AG at the same time as the Cabinet elections but determine that the AG is not part of the Cabinet.
Click to expand...

that is a great idea, very good point you made about representing the people, vrs the government
 
GM's proposal for the amendment would tend to cause an overlap in the judicial and executive function and compromise seperation of powers. It would essentially create a 'Heimatsicherheitdienst' or 'Homeland Security Service' for lack of a better term. Such an arrangement would overlap with the Ministry of Defense. If you sufficiently keep powers seperated then you tend to stiffle any rivalries between ministries and attempts by one ministry to sieze overlapping powers from other ministries. This could happen accidentally or intentionally.

Instead of a Ministry of Regional Security as stated, why not a 'Ministry of Vital Statistics" that reports to the Delegate and serves to gather statistical information to be used for maintaining regional security and stability. This would give the Delegate the manpower and resources to safeguard the Delegacy during his/her term.

The best part is that such an arrangement could be established by legislative acts rather than by constitutional amendment. Nothing prevents the Delegate from having a staff or creating a support staff.

R
 
Then perhaps a better solution is to keep the Minister of Defense position as-is with a simple numeric revision to position #6 (to correspond with the Item 1 amendment proposal) and simply strike the Minister of Justice position from the Constitution altogether, making it wholly subject to the Court Rules.
 
Romanoffia:
Heimatsicherheitdienst
Click to expand...
:blink: I can't even begin to pronounce that... anyway.

If the Attorney General is to be appointed, it should be appointed by the Prime Minister with consent of the Cabinet. However, I greatly prefer it to be a independently elected office.

The Minister of Defense has quite a lot to do without the added burden of any legal procedures that may be going on at the time. The NPA always has at least one mission, possibly two, at any given time, and there is often a waiting list for regions that are either being or are about to be invaded.

This is not necessary, and would probably create further problems if passed.
 
Thoughts on my counter proposal regarding the removal of the Minister of Justice altogether?

The office could be a non Cabinet position elected via the Court Rules. Precedent for RA election of non Cabinet officials exists with the office of Speaker.
 
The Speaker does have Cabinet-Level permissions, though. They have access to the Cabinet forums, just can't vote.

I'm not sure. What we have now is fine.
 
Hersfold:
The Speaker does have Cabinet-Level permissions, though. They have access to the Cabinet forums, just can't vote.

I'm not sure. What we have now is fine.
Click to expand...
The whole point of this is because what we have now is not fine. We do not have enough people to run the government and the ones that are running do not seem to have the stamina to see it through to the end.

The Item 1 proposal alleviates a great deal of this and I am willing to concede this since the other seems to have strong support but I believe the removal of at least one of these positions is warranted.

In my opinion I would see them both removed altogether, leaving the NPA to be lead by the PM directly and the AG to be elected by the RA as a separate non-Cabinet position. But that is just me.

It is my intention to make several more followup proposals that will alter the structure of the PM anyway with regards to actual powers, perhaps combining that role with the Speaker instead of the Delegate since that seems to have widespread opposition. Would those of you opposed to this proposal as it stands even entertain the possibility of giving the NPA directly to the PM and letting him or her appoint military commanders?
 
Gracius Maximus:
The whole point of this is because what we have now is not fine. We do not have enough people to run the government and the ones that are running do not seem to have the stamina to see it through to the end.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, the government is rather large. But your Item 1 proposal knocks three offices into 1 - when you consider that this also removes two deputy posts, that's a fair improvement, one that is probably enough.

I suppose the AG could be held separate. Doing so would remove the need for a deputy, but then we wouldn't have a back-up when the AG wandered off.

I'd prefer the army be kept separate from the Prime Minister's duties. Whoever gets elected to be PM should be elected for their ability to lead the region and government, not their militaristic prowess.
 
I think removing the Minister of Defense and giving the Prime Minister power over the NPA (power to appoint/dismiss commanders, power to authorize missions, etc), but have the NPA function largely independent of the Cabinet (allow it to develop its own structure with the cooperation and consent of the Prime Minister, allow it to choose its own leaders and form of leadership, once again with the cooperation and consent of the Prime Minister) would be a wonderful idea.
 
There seems absolutely no need for the AG to have a position in the Cabinet. Indeed his ability to at least appear to impartially represent all citizens is somewhat hampered by his doing so.

Apart from acting in the role of Prosecutor, ie AG there are no duties listed in the current constitution for the MoJ so there appears no need for one!

I'd go with striking the MoJ and suggest that the AG is appointed by the PM, in the same way as Justices are and having a similar length term and the appointment being the subject of RA approval.
 
I quite like the idea of removing the MoD, and simply allowing the NPA to choose their rank structure. Maybe we should have the Delegate as the figurative head of the NPA too?

In regards to the MoJ, then yes - I've been saying for a long time that the position is essentially useless in the cabinet.

I'd also advocate combining the Minister of Culture and Education and Minister of Arts and Entertainment.
 
Digitalis:
I quite like the idea of removing the MoD, and simply allowing the NPA to choose their rank structure. Maybe we should have the Delegate as the figurative head of the NPA too?
Click to expand...
The Delegate is useless as a defender - the entire goal of a UN Defender Nation is to be in another region at update so that your endorsement helps get a native into the Delegate's seat. Having the Delegate serve, even figuratively as head, is rather pointless.

My concern with the NPA's autonomy is that it opens up a wide door for massive inactivity. Under Dalimbar's and Ator People's command, the NPA has become the most active organization in the region, probably including the government itself. Without a fixed leader position, the NPA could very easily fall into disarray when the appointed leader wanders off - I've seen it happen with other organizations, even ones within this region. We need somebody constitutionally required to be in charge of the NPA.

I'd also advocate combining the Minister of Culture and Education and Minister of Arts and Entertainment.
Click to expand...

Psst... see his other proposal ;)
 
A figurehead does not have to actually defend; I meant that the Delegate would be the NPA's represetantive in official affairs, and any promotions given would be at his/her behest. The Delegate wouldn't actually have to administrate the NPA at all once the system was in place, but would act like the British Queen does for our armed forces.

Since the NPA is first-and-foremost her honour guard, don't you think that the Delegate should speak for them?
 
Eh. I still don't think there'd be much point to it, and the problem still remains that we would need an actual, permanent, head of the NPA (like the MoD - by permanent, I mean an office that will always exist for that purpose)
 
Hersfold:
Eh. I still don't think there'd be much point to it, and the problem still remains that we would need an actual, permanent, head of the NPA (like the MoD - by permanent, I mean an office that will always exist for that purpose)
Click to expand...
Right, let me explain a bit more clearly.

Militaries in a real world context have a rank structure.

These are promotions rather than elections, and as such tend to change very little. Most countries also have a figurative head of the military, such as the British Queen or the US President. The Delegate would serve as a figurative head of the Military, but would also deal with things concerning the NPA in a political sense. Then there are the bureaucratic sides to the Military. In the UK, I don't believe I've ever seen an MP leading an army, so why do our Ministers lead our army?

Could that be the reason that the army is faltering?


A rank structure could be set up, with promotions being award by the Delegate (with advice from high-ranking NPA members and/or the PM). The NPA, once in place would effectively lead themselves, with dedicated members being in place to control activity without having to worry about elections or impeachements

We should be letting the NPA decide who leads it, rather than whomever can be arsed to run for the MoD office.
 
dont pick it up:
While i agree a rank structure should be set up and promotions given, mabe the PM should do that instead of the delegate.
Click to expand...
The PM is the actual head of the region, and speaks for all of us. With the -- hopefully -- numerous suggestions about to be made to strengthen the PM's position, this is one thing that could be removed. The Delegate doesn't officially have a lot of things to do in the region at the minute.
 
I don't recall ever saying that the army was faltering now - On the contrary, I believe it to be functioning better than it ever has before, that it would only falter if this suggestion were to be put into force.

A rank structure already exists - the NPA is divided into divisions, with the highest-ranking officer in each division acting as Division Officer. The Division Officers currently have a bit of autonomy with their command - as Divison 1's DO, I could order half the NPA to an invasion site without Ator's approval, as long as he doesn't have any standing orders that would countermand my own.

The NPA can already effectively run itself. We don't need to go changing things.
We should be letting the NPA decide who leads it, rather than whomever can be arsed to run for the MoD office.
Click to expand...
The NPA does decide. Whoever runs for MoD must be an active NPA member and must have the approval of at least half of the NPA BEFORE they can announce their candidacy. You may remember that caused a bit of a hitch with the last election - one of the candidates did not get the requisite approval by the deadline, and was invalidated.
 
I am very much against the PM having any powers over the NPA. As I am with Hersfold in that it would lead to a militarisation of the role, it is not in the interests of the TNP to see this happen at all.

However I also believe that there needs to be some sort of leader of the Armed forces such as a MoD because otherwise they have no direction or overall purpose. Having Divisions is all well and good, however there needs to be an overall co-ordinator.
 
The main thing that would change, regardless of whether the PM or Delegate gained control over the NPA, is that the NPA wouldn't have to bother with nominations and elections every three months, but would have a more stable leadership, since the operational Head of the Military wouldn't be changing every three months.

I'm not sure where the concern about having a leader comes in, as no where has anyone suggested that the NPA should be leaderless. The only difference is that the Leaders would be appointed (either through promotions or direct appointment from the PM or Delegate) instead of elected.

I've always seen the MoD as more of a political buffer and spokesperson in Cabinet affairs for the NPA than the General. I also have met numerous Defenders that would have fulfilled the General role excellently, but absolutely despised the political end of the being a Minister. Giving either the PM or Delegate the political end of the Minister of Defense duties would allow the General-type positions to focus solely on the actual military side of things.
 
Heft:
I'm not sure where the concern about having a leader comes in, as no where has anyone suggested that the NPA should be leaderless. The only difference is that the Leaders would be appointed (either through promotions or direct appointment from the PM or Delegate) instead of elected.
Click to expand...
The concern comes in when the more-or-less-permanent leader starts becoming inactive due to RL concerns or other responsibilities in NS. With the leadership fading away, attention begins to divert away from the organization, in this case the NPA. The membership begins to fall as inactive as the leaders, and in the space of a few months you end up with a practically dead section of our forum, with only a scant few of the members half-heartedly looking for any new information once a week.

I've seen this happen before. Before I was appointed Director of the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, the NPIA was the victim of this very scenario. The leadership began to wander away from their duties in the NPIA, and the membership followed. I have done as much as I can to get the Agency back on it's feet again - better organization, more recruitment, etc. I do not want the NPA, NationStates' last remaining feeder defender army, to fall victim to this same blight. As I am almost sure it will if a leader is not elected along with the rest of the government, to ensure continued active involvement.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Then perhaps a better solution is to keep the Minister of Defense position as-is with a simple numeric revision to position #6 (to correspond with the Item 1 amendment proposal) and simply strike the Minister of Justice position from the Constitution altogether, making it wholly subject to the Court Rules.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea. The problem is that someone functioning as a prosecutor is an executive function and not a judicial function. Having a prosecutorial agent who is a member of the executive branch is an essential element in checks and balances.

The logic being that law enforcement and the bringing of charges and subsequent prosecution/investigation, etc., is an executive function. Having the court engage in prosecution and bringing of charges would give the court an executive function in criminal/civil matters.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would be very uncomfortable being charged by and prosecuted by one branch of government. The court should essentially be a neutral element (judicial) acting in intercession between a prosecutor (executive) and a defendent (representative) - therefore in the current arrangement, you have in the context of a trial three representatives of three branches of government (the defendant being a citizen and technically part of the representative element of government).

R
 
Hersfold:
Heft:
I'm not sure where the concern about having a leader comes in, as no where has anyone suggested that the NPA should be leaderless. The only difference is that the Leaders would be appointed (either through promotions or direct appointment from the PM or Delegate) instead of elected.
Click to expand...
The concern comes in when the more-or-less-permanent leader starts becoming inactive due to RL concerns or other responsibilities in NS. With the leadership fading away, attention begins to divert away from the organization, in this case the NPA. The membership begins to fall as inactive as the leaders, and in the space of a few months you end up with a practically dead section of our forum, with only a scant few of the members half-heartedly looking for any new information once a week.
Click to expand...
If the appointed leader becomes inactive, they will be removed, either by the PM or Delegate directly or through the internal mechanisms of the NPA itself. If anything, this makes that process easier, as the NPA wouldn't have to deal with removing a Cabinet Minister.

If the desire to keep the NPA going is there, it won't make a difference whether or not the leaders are elected or appointed/promoted. The NPA has been largely inactive since December of 04 at the very least (when I first joined). Despite it being an elected position, most of the MoD's never really did a whole lot (including myself in the second half of my term). Summer of 05, a few of us got together and started actively defending and finding missions and such, without Free4All, who was the then-MoD. He gave one or two of us the official authority to declare missions and we took it from there.

If anything, separating the political and military functions of the office (by giving either the PM or Delegate the political authority and an appointed position the military authority) would widen the pool of people willing to take on leadership roles within the NPA.
 
However it is such an important role do we really wish to have it appointed or should we not allow for at least some measure of accountability?
 
The appointed person is directly accountable to whoever appoints them, who would in turn be accountable to the populace if they failed to take action, should the appointed person do something wrong.

Though, I hardly see that as a problem, since I don't see how a NPA Commander could really commit abuse of power if they wanted. Potentially, they could try and order an attack on an ally, or random invasions, but I highly doubt many NPOers would blindly do something like that, and they wouldn't be able to cause much trouble anyway.
 
Indeed, well I suppose we must trust people to do the job properly. Otherwise what is the point anyway.
 
The other alternative is to require the SC members to sign in and post in a specific thread at least every 36 hours or be replaced.

There is nothing wrong with the SC as an element - the problem begins when those who are elected to SC aren't there when they are needed.

R
 
Gracius Maximus:
Then perhaps a better solution is to keep the Minister of Defense position as-is with a simple numeric revision to position #6 (to correspond with the Item 1 amendment proposal) and simply strike the Minister of Justice position from the Constitution altogether, making it wholly subject to the Court Rules.
Click to expand...

That makes much more sense, and I would support that as the MoJ/AG doesn't really do all that much. The Speaker/PM could easily take over the AG's role perhaps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top