Emergency Powers Authorization

AlHoma

AlHoma

TNPer
1. As our region is the target of several mis-information campaigns by several factions.
2. As we have reason to believe that these factions are reciving support and direction from forces outside of our region.
3. As the primary goal of these factions is to depose the democratically elected delegate of our region, Former English Colony

The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific does hereby authorize the delegate, Former English Colony, to use such powers that are available, prudent, and upholding the traditions of The North Pacific to defend the security and stability of The North Pacifc.

The Regional Assembly does also hereby command that the delegate, Former English Colony, present evidence to the Regional Assembly at large for actions taken under the auspices of this aurhorization.

The Regional Assembly does hereby enact a sunset provision of 60 days on this authorization, at which time it must be renewed or a new authorization must be made.
 
This has my full support as a bare necessity if it is deemed legally binding by an authoritative voice.
 
No. I will never vote to give the delegate carte blanche with a trivial follow up with the RA. If there is a threat then she can either contact the Security Council and get permission to eject that way, or she can call a referendum vote.
 
I agree with DD. I understand the sentiment behind the statement, and support the idea of drafting some sort of specific War Powers legislation for the Delegate, but a blank check, power-wise? Not so much.
 
FEC will not be delegate in 60 days (we do have delegate elections in August folks). I would not trust an unknown with this power.

Other than that I have no issue with this.
 
My issue is that FEC has had to act outside the auspices of the Security Council on a few occasions recently. It appears that we need to aurhorize a faster response, but still need to have the SC agree with it. If she acts rashly, we can always impeach her.
 
Hm.... Would a compromise of "Former English Colony only" and have the option to re-authorize with the new delegate work for those who care?
 
I would prefer an amendment to the Constitution (yes, another amendment) that provided the Delegate the autonomy to act swiftly without waiting on outside approval in the event of an immediate need.

Perhaps something similar to that developed recently in the west where the Delegate can relocate a nation but must provide satisfactory explanation within a set amount of time or face a vote of no confidence. (My apologies to the west if this is not an exact relation to your form.)
 
Changing it from a 60 day clause to granting the power specifically to Former English Colonies is the only thing I would want.

I would certainly support a permanent Constitutional Amendment, however, those take time, this could be voted on immediately, granting FEC the powers needed to legally do what she needs to do while we work on a more permanent solution.
 
With a change to limit it to a one-time, FEC-specific examption, I would be much more likely to support it.

But I would still have to think long and hard.
 
Make it FEC only and it gets my vote....


something to also think about in the amnendment might be..... something about that this will be non negotiable with the next Delegate whether we decide to offer them these powers or not...

something like:


that it is at the RAs discretion and pleasure that any delegate has these emergency powers....

Any thoughts?
 
If we combine both the FEC-specific power, and Gracius Maximus' suggestion that all ejections must be justified to satisfaction, then we have a winner.
 
Ok, here's the revised version

1. As our region is the target of several mis-information campaigns by several factions.
2. As we have reason to believe that these factions are reciving support and direction from forces outside of our region.
3. As the primary goal of these factions is to depose the democratically elected delegate of our region, Former English Colony

The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific does hereby authorize the delegate, Former English Colony, to use such powers that are available, prudent, and upholding the traditions of The North Pacific to defend the security and stability of The North Pacifc.

The Regional Assembly does also hereby command that the delegate, Former English Colony, present evidence to the Regional Assembly at large for actions taken under the auspices of this aurhorization. Any action taken under the auspices of this authorization must be justified and documented to the appropriate members of the region or face Impeachment for failing to obey this authorization.

The Regional Assembly does hereby enact a sunset provision of the rest of the current Delegate's current term, at which time it must be renewed or a new authorization must be made.
Click to expand...
 
mr_sniffles:
Too vague and is this a law to authorize the FEC to ignore laws?
Click to expand...
This is basically a granting of power to Erastide (Former English Colony) to excercise the rights granted by being the delegate of the region by losening some of the controls. It still maintains the oversight functions that we put in place after our last tyrany and gives FEC more room to do her job.

I ask that the speaker call for final markup of the authorization.
 
What if we added a clause saying that if the delegate does choose to eject someone (or more than one person), they need the approval of the PM and 2 RA members. This would be much like the required approval for the ejection of spammers.

But otherwise, I support this.
 
Ator People:
What if we added a clause saying that if the delegate does choose to eject someone (or more than one person), they need the approval of the PM and 2 RA members. This would be much like the required approval for the ejection of spammers.

But otherwise, I support this.
Click to expand...
That'd be lovely. If Hersfold was *here*. And I've forgotten when he finally gets back. >_>
 
Considering that there is a legitimate state of war, a "War Powers" act as the second version would suffice.

GM is correct that we do eventually need an amendment enabling the Delegate to act if the SC cannot act in time. Endo-tarters can move very fast and perhaps an item that permits immediate ejection should someone approach too close to the delegate's endorsement numbers. An automatic trigger rule might be a good thing to have.

R
 
Former English Colony:
Ator People:
What if we added a clause saying that if the delegate does choose to eject someone (or more than one person), they need the approval of the PM and 2 RA members.  This would be much like the required approval for the ejection of spammers.

But otherwise, I support this.
Click to expand...
That'd be lovely. If Hersfold was *here*. And I've forgotten when he finally gets back. >_>
Click to expand...
Maybe a clause that would allow either for the PM's approval and 2 RA members, or in the absense of the PM, the approval of 2 Cabinet Ministers and 2 RA members.

I'm just trying to think of a way to put a check on the powers of the delegate. It's not that I don't trust FEC, but I still think there should be some kind of approval from the government before ejecting a nation.
 
Ator People:
Former English Colony:
Ator People:
What if we added a clause saying that if the delegate does choose to eject someone (or more than one person), they need the approval of the PM and 2 RA members.  This would be much like the required approval for the ejection of spammers.

But otherwise, I support this.
Click to expand...
That'd be lovely. If Hersfold was *here*. And I've forgotten when he finally gets back. >_>
Click to expand...
Maybe a clause that would allow either for the PM's approval and 2 RA members, or in the absense of the PM, the approval of 2 Cabinet Ministers and 2 RA members.

I'm just trying to think of a way to put a check on the powers of the delegate. It's not that I don't trust FEC, but I still think there should be some kind of approval from the government before ejecting a nation.
Click to expand...
The 2 Cabinet member bit should depend on if GM gets his reduction bills passed. Currently, I think 3 would be in order.
 
I realize that in recent months the whole "formal discussion" thing has possibly become querulous to many people, considering that we discuss and then essentially re-discuss.

No, we can't skip to voting because the Constitution doesn't allow for that.

Secondly, I would like to point out that in the most recent vote on the Constitutional appendix, the argument was brought up that the appendix idea was not written in a formal way, as per a law, etc etc.

The fact that this wasn't brought up during formal discussion shows that there is some validity to having a second discussion session. Indeed, if we didn't have FD's we'd see a lot more things of that nature.

I'd LOVE to put this out for formal discussion -- but there's no finalized version that I see.
 
1. As our region is the target of several mis-information campaigns by several factions.
2. As we have reason to believe that these factions are reciving support and direction from forces outside of our region.
3. As the primary goal of these factions is to depose the democratically elected delegate of our region, Former English Colony

The Regional Assembly of The North Pacific does hereby authorize the delegate, Former English Colony, to use such powers that are available, prudent, and upholding the traditions of The North Pacific to defend the security and stability of The North Pacifc.

The Regional Assembly does also hereby command that the delegate, Former English Colony, present evidence to the Regional Assembly at large for actions taken under the auspices of this authorization. Any action taken under the auspices of this authorization must be justified and documented to the appropriate members of the region or face Impeachment for failing to obey this authorization.

In the event that this authorization is used to eject a nation, one of the following requirements must be fulfilled:
A) The Prime Minister and three Regional Assembly members approve the action.
B) The approval of two Cabinet Ministers and two Regional Assembly members.

The Regional Assembly does hereby enact a sunset provision of the rest of the current Delegate's current term, at which time it must be renewed or a new authorization must be made.
Click to expand...

What about that? I added the bolded text.
 
Haha, oh man. We need to speed things up by allowing the delegate to bypass the security council, but we still want her to have to get approval, she still needs checks on her power! Just beautiful.
 
Byardkuria - Chief Justice
Ator People - Minister of Defense
Democratic Donkeys - Associate Justice
Grosseschnauzer - Casts his vote in abstention due to access issues, votes to reach quorum.
Digitalis - Deputy Minister of AE, soon to be Minister

So that's 2 cabinet members and someone who votes to reach quorum! Weird! You could totally, like, have them vote to eject people!


Also finding a few RA members? Why not just hold a real vote if you're going to involve the RA?
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Byardkuria - Chief Justice
Ator People - Minister of Defense
Democratic Donkeys - Associate Justice
Grosseschnauzer - Casts his vote in abstention due to access issues, votes to reach quorum.
Digitalis - Deputy Minister of AE, soon to be Minister

So that's 2 cabinet members and someone who votes to reach quorum! Weird! You could totally, like, have them vote to eject people!


Also finding a few RA members? Why not just hold a real vote if you're going to involve the RA?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's true, the Security Council meets the same requirements. But it demands specific people.

*Former English Colony shrugs. I doubt something like this will pass anyways. But it's an interesting discussion with some valid reasoning.
 
wizardofoz01:
I realize that in recent months the whole "formal discussion" thing has possibly become querulous to many people, considering that we discuss and then essentially re-discuss.

No, we can't skip to voting because the Constitution doesn't allow for that.

Secondly, I would like to point out that in the most recent vote on the Constitutional appendix, the argument was brought up that the appendix idea was not written in a formal way, as per a law, etc etc.

The fact that this wasn't brought up during formal discussion shows that there is some validity to having a second discussion session. Indeed, if we didn't have FD's we'd see a lot more things of that nature.

I'd LOVE to put this out for formal discussion -- but there's no finalized version that I see.
Click to expand...
For reference:
Section 3. Legislation.

A - Any member of the Regional Assembly may submit a bill to the Regional Assembly as a proposed law or submit a proposal for a constitutional amendment. Proposals shall be submitted to the Speaker.
B - The Speaker shall select the proposals to be voted on by the Regional Assembly. Bills and proposals that are selected for consideration shall not be frivolous. The subject matter of bills selected for consideration shall have as its object the implementation of this Constitution, the adoption, amendment, or repeal of provisions of The North Pacific Legal Code, or involve any other actions that are necessary and proper and that are authorized by this Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, or the other laws of The North Pacific. The Speaker shall not exercise the authority conferred in this provision in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The Speaker may confer with the Prime Minister, the Ministers of the Cabinet, or with the Chief Justice, for comment on a submitted bill or proposal.
C - During the 21 day period following submission, the Nation who submitted a proposal may revise or withdraw the proposed bill. Any proposed bill not selected for a referendum vote of the Regional Assembly within 21 days of submission shall be declared a dead bill.
Editorial note: This section was amended by a constitutional amendment merging registered voters into the Regional Assembly adopted 26 February - 6 March 2006.

Section 4. Adoption of Laws by Regional Assembly Referendum.

A - Bills and proposals selected by the Speaker will be voted on in a referendum of the Regional Assembly.
B - A legislative bill is adopted as a law if, at a referendum in which a quorum of the Regional Assembly participates, the bill garners no less than 60 per cent approval of the votes cast during the voting period of one week.
C- The Speaker shall provide a notice of the referendum on the bill which shall include the date on which voting shall commence after a notice and comment period on the bill (in its final form) of at least 24 hours, but not to exceed seven days.
Click to expand...

I can not find anything in there that states a proposed bill must go through two discussion steps prior to vote.

Also, the vote taking place on the appendix is not an amendment to the Constitution, it is simply an internal structure, which the Regional Assembly does have autonomy to select, on how the Constitution is presented. It is not altering the content.
 
Yes, I remember going to propose an amendment to remove the formal discussion requirement and then not finding anything about a formal discussion being required. That was a hella confusing.

I do have to agree with DD, Ator's suggestion seems to make it a little pointless, though it would still give FEC a little more flexibility, I suppose. Cut it to 1 cabinet member and 2 RA members, maybe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top