war powers act

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
Dear all.

Those who know me know that I am a great believer in democracy in NS. I believe that our Constitution is a fine peacetime document, but it has shown itself to be inadequate when we are under concerted attack in times of war.

I am loath to scrap the constitution (although when the dust has settled we may wish to have a convention to revise it), but harsh times mean hard decisions.

I am proposing a "War Powers" act whose provisions, if passed, would be enactable by a combined vote of the the cabinet and security councilby simple majority in times of war (declared or apparent)

The war powers act

The provisions of this act may be invoked in the event of war (declared or apparent) being waged against the North Pacific Government, delegate or community.

The provisions of this act may be invoked by combined vote of the Cabinet and security council of the North Pacific, by simple majority vote, or by the Regional Assembly by simple majority.

Seeing that The North Pacific finds itself in a period of war and attack. Until such time as the crisis is over, or until the provisions of this act are revoked as outlined below...

1. All elections, including delegate elections are suspended.

2. The MOIA has the right to refuse any Regional Assembly application.

3. The delegate has the right to eject and ban nations from the region, subject to review by the cabinet

4. Forum Admins have the right to ban, IP ban (irrespective of RA status) or otherwise restrict the posting of those seen by them to be acting against the region, again subject to cabinet review.

5. The cabinet may remove (by simple majority vote) from the RA any nation giving comfort to, aiding, passing information to or otherwise supporting any region or group at war with TNP. This would be subject to review by the Regional Assembly, again by simple majority vote.

6. No official of the North Pacific may be prosecuted or impeached, during of after the enactment of this law, for actions taken under this legislation.

7. This act is subject to cabinet review when the crisis is over, or to Regional Assembly review after 30 days from enactment, when it may be repealed by a supermajority of those voting, and a 50% quorum of the RA.
Click to expand...
 
care to give reasons, DD. This is a discussion thread, after all, and perhaps the legislation can be improved by discussion.
 
It is an inherint right of a state to preserve its existence. This is obvious to any constitutional scholar. However, some constitutions work better in peace than in war, and it is better to have a law providing for that scenario than establish a precedent of extraconstitutional actions. Aye.
 
I think the idea behind article 1 is fine, but we need clear guidelines to set up how elections will occur after the crisis.

I think that the MoIA should be required to give a reason for rejecting an application. I don't particularly care if it's a good one or if it's reviewable, though. Likewise for articles 3 and 4, I believe the relevant parties also ought to issue a public reason.

I also feel uncomfortable with this war powers act being able to be enacted by just the cabinet and security council -- if someone is enacting war against a region of our size it will either be obvious or made obvious easily enough to secure an RA quorum+majority.

The basic idea behind this is fine, but I think that even in a state of war we should make sure to preserve the highest possible degree of governmental transparency, to both keep morale up and as a reminder of what we strive for in peacetime.
 
I think provision 2 should need Cabinet approval, 3 should have a justice and/or SC approval, 4 absolutely not (too familair, plus the Lex's are just annoying and in no way dangerous), 6 absolutely not (it just goes against everything we stand for and gives any delegate carte blanche, just an insane amount of power), and I think we should shorten the life of this to fifteen days.

Yes, I am frustrated by our Constitution's oversight in times of war but this just goes too far. The way I see it, the Lexicon has been and will never be such a threat in which these measures are needed. I will fight this version with every ounce of my will. But I would support it if you dropped provision 1 and made it only for the Lexiconian war.

Also more on prov 1, are you ****ing nuts?!!!!!!!!!!

However if the RA approves this, the constitutionally it is legal. But this just goes wayyyy too far.
 
I would like to state my views before going further.

Firstly, in regards to prologue paragraph 2, perhaps instead of the combined Cabinet-Security Council vote that only has a simple majority, that it would be neccessary to have a supermajority by both bodies? This in my opinion allows for more consensus of both the Executive and Security branches of government, instead of allowing just 51% of voters to potentially hijack the region, as I fear may happen.

Secondly, if a vote on the matter is approved, a formal statement including the justifications of the declaration of War Powers, and probably outlining the neccessary steps to keep this as short as possible, should be written by the Delegate or Cabinet.

Thirdly, in regards to Article Three of the proposed War Powers Act, I believe it is neccessary and fair for the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs to first privately message the applicant regarding his/her failed application, then post a public statement, like what Unterwasserseestaat stated.

In regards to other sections and the text in general, I give it a solid aye.
 
Do we need a war measures act? Yes. Do we need to become the enemy we're fighting to win this war? No. It's a fact, the Lexiconians want to crush our government and install the regime we saw the last time with Cathyy and IP but if they want to destroy everything we have fought so hard for then they'll have to do it themselves. I refuse to allow our fear to do it for them.
 
I think most people would accept that nobody has fought harder than me to establish and maintain a democratic government here, and I have served one term as delegate and one term as PM without anyone seriously worrying about the constitution being in jeopardy.

That is why this is designed to be a temporary measure, needing review after 30 days come what may. Better this than the constitution as a whole break under concerted attack. I do not believe that we are becoming like the enemy, or any enemy. We are taking measures to preserve what we have.

As far as Dali's suggestions go, yes - a supermajority of both cabinet and SC would work. I made it a simple majority out of fear that one or two cabinet ministers could block this. Remember, we are possibly in the process of cutting down the cabinet numbers.

I also like dali's suggestions #2 and #3.

As far as Unter's questions about why CAbinet and SC go, I kept it at that because, in my opinion, the greatest threat to our region under the current constitution is an unfriendly power quietly, over the period of a month or two, putting 20 to 30 nations into our RA, then declaring or waging war.

If RA approval were then needed for the War Measures Act to be enforced, approval may never be gained.

Far better to make it Cabinet and SC approval, which can quickly be obtained.
 
mr_sniffles:
Do we need a war measures act? Yes. Do we need to become the enemy we're fighting to win this war? No. It's a fact, the Lexiconians want to crush our government and install the regime we saw the last time with Cathyy and IP but if they want to destroy everything we have fought so hard for then they'll have to do it themselves. I refuse to allow our fear to do it for them.
Click to expand...
I support the same viewpoint.
 
Wow... I sure have missed alot around here.

This strikes me as a little bit of a knee-jerk overreaction to the situation, I'm not sure to what extent this is needed.
 
The war powers act

The provisions of this act may be invoked in the event of war (declared or apparent) being waged against the North Pacific Government, delegate or community.

The provisions of this act may be invoked by combined vote of the Cabinet and security council of the North Pacific, by simple majority vote, or by the Regional Assembly by simple majority.
Click to expand...

Maybe just the Security Council? This is ok.

1. All elections, including delegate elections are suspended.
Click to expand...
Eh. No. Keep elections for everything except Delegate and Vice Delegate. It's too dangerous to switch them around while we're under attack, but the rest of the Cabinet should be safe as long as we keep the RA secure. I don't want this to end up being the grounds for a dictatorship.

2. The MOIA has the right to refuse any Regional Assembly application.
Click to expand...
Add: If the applicant is suspected to have connections with the enemies of the North Pacific.

3. The delegate has the right to eject and ban nations from the region, subject to review by the cabinet
Click to expand...
Eh. Ok.

4. Forum Admins have the right to ban, IP ban (irrespective of RA status) or otherwise restrict the posting of those seen by them to be acting against the region, again subject to cabinet review.
Click to expand...
Eh. Ok. Maybe.

5. The cabinet may remove (by simple majority vote) from the RA any nation giving comfort to, aiding, passing information to or otherwise supporting any region or group at war with TNP. This would be subject to review by the Regional Assembly, again by simple majority vote.
Click to expand...
Eh. Ok.

6. No official of the North Pacific may be prosecuted or impeached, during of after the enactment of this law, for actions taken under this legislation.
Click to expand...
No. Allow impeachments to continue, as a Minister could do something that would seriously mess up TNP's standing in the war. And if a Cabinet does attempt to use this as a means to set up a dictatorship, there is still a chance the Court would not be corrupt.

7. This act is subject to cabinet review when the crisis is over, or to Regional Assembly review after 30 days from enactment, when it may be repealed by a supermajority of those voting, and a 50% quorum of the RA.
Click to expand...

Eh. Maybe instead: "The war powers outlined above are immediately nullified following the signing of any surrender articles, peace treaties, or similar by the Government of the North Pacific. In addition, the Regional Assembly shall vote on the continuation of these powers once every 30 days the powers listed above are in force. If 50%+1 of the voting RA members are against continuation of these powers, with a quorum participating, the powers listed above shall be nullified immediately."

Otherwise, yes, this is a necessary part of our Constitution. I echo Mr_Sniffles's sentiments about this, as while this is obviously not intended to be used to set up a dictatorship, it could in the way it is currently written, especially if a particularly charismatic person got into power. Hopefully the changes I've suggested will help remove some of that vulnerability.
 
That sounds better. I agree that there is no need to stop elections (barring the Delegate/Vice Delegate) when at war.

Perhaps add to 3. that the Delegate cannot ban current RA members, I'd go for the same with the admins banning people from the forum as well- with expeditious rules for removing people from the RA and for stopping people from joining the RA that shouldn't be an issue. The main thing, I think, is that there are checks and balances on actions taken by the government but, to allow quicker responses, that these happen after the event rather than before.
 
The Delegate should be allowed to ban current RA members. They could also do something and mess up. What if someone developed a grudge towards us? RA's can see information that not everyone can see. That could easily be passed on by an angry member.

I am for this proposal.
 
flemingovia:
care to give reasons, DD. This is a discussion thread, after all, and perhaps the legislation can be improved by discussion.
Click to expand...
Sure, I think this is an awful idea, it won't be long until we're burning down the Reichstag.


1. All elections, including delegate elections are suspended.
Click to expand...

And there goes our Democracy for a de facto dictatorship.

2. The MOIA has the right to refuse any Regional Assembly application.
Click to expand...

On what grounds? Way too vague and open to abuse.

3. The delegate has the right to eject and ban nations from the region, subject to review by the cabinet
Click to expand...

Again, dictatorship. Might as well start calling the cabinet the ruling party. Especially when you give the ruling party the power to control votes through RA application rejection without review, and rejection of RA status by a majority vote of the cabinet. I fail to see why the current constitutional procedure can't be used in the instances of banning beyond those exercising the power being woefully ignorant of the Constitution.

4. Forum Admins have the right to ban, IP ban (irrespective of RA status) or otherwise restrict the posting of those seen by them to be acting against the region, again subject to cabinet review.
Click to expand...

Article 1:
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.
Click to expand...

Notice it says nation, not citizen. Having the cabinet decide to curtail the free speech of a nation is unconstitutional, it makes no references to times of war. Start banning those who voice dissent and we'll be just like the tyrants of the past.

5. The cabinet may remove (by simple majority vote) from the RA any nation giving comfort to, aiding, passing information to or otherwise supporting any region or group at war with TNP. This would be subject to review by the Regional Assembly, again by simple majority vote.
Click to expand...

This is by far the most reasonable of all the provisions so far as it at least has some oversight.

6. No official of the North Pacific may be prosecuted or impeached, during of after the enactment of this law, for actions taken under this legislation.
Click to expand...

Oh ho ho, wow. Just wow. No one will be held accountable for violating the constitution through this act.

7. This act is subject to cabinet review when the crisis is over, or to Regional Assembly review after 30 days from enactment, when it may be repealed by a supermajority of those voting, and a 50% quorum of the RA.
Click to expand...

So the cabinet can just review it when the "crisis" is over, but not motion for repeal? They'll have to wait 30 days until it comes under the review of the RA? What happens when the RA decides not to vote it down because all of the RA members who voice dissent are ejected from the RA, and possibly banned from the forum?


I would vote nay to this because it sets up a dictatorship pure and simple and walks all over the Constitution and the rights it grants. Additionally if this act passes in its current form you can expect judicial rulings striking down pretty much all of this act as unconstitutional. So there are your reasons. Frankly I am shocked by this and how easily you forget your history Flemingovia.
 
If the bit allowing the revocation of RA membership were removed and RA were allowed to have a stronger voice in the decisions or at least authorizing the decisions or reviewing them, I would be in favor of this.

As it currently stands, I believe this is the starting ground for a solid ruling class in the government that could use this document to run as a dictatorship for an indefinite amount of time.

Even with no moral objections to a dictatorship, the only people who would take advantage of this document to create a dictatorship would be the morally corrupt and a corrupt dictatorship is something I do have moral objection to. A dictatorship is no longer the people's dictatorship if it is created by abusing the means the people gave it to protect them.
 
1. All elections, including delegate elections are suspended.
Click to expand...

I agree with DD on this one, we allow that to happen and the Lex or whatever other invader army wins.

2. The MOIA has the right to refuse any Regional Assembly application.
Click to expand...

*Blue Wolf remembers how one time he was rejected as a RA because he was a raider and how those laws that kept him out still exist today

I think we already have measures in the Cons. to deal with this as it is...

3. The delegate has the right to eject and ban nations from the region, subject to review by the cabinet
Click to expand...

I like this...as long as its the RA and not just the cabinet who can review it...
same thing with # 4

5. The cabinet may remove (by simple majority vote) from the RA any nation giving comfort to, aiding, passing information to or otherwise supporting any region or group at war with TNP. This would be subject to review by the Regional Assembly, again by simple majority vote.
Click to expand...

I think we already have laws addressing treason too...besides I like the idea of a trial.

6. No official of the North Pacific may be prosecuted or impeached, during of after the enactment of this law, for actions taken under this legislation.
Click to expand...

Way, way, way, too much power there...
 
No one is questioning anyone's patriotism or how hard we've fought but all I'm saying is that democracy, accountability, and transparency is what this region was founded on (in fact it says so on the Constitution) but we do need checks and balances.

I am flexible in withholding elections for the delegate but to give so much power to the Cabinet and then stop elections for them is ludicrious and this is from a Cabinet member too!

If this condition is met then I'll be more able to agree with Cabinet actions dictating some of these provisions. But banning someone without SC or even legal review is out of the question. I do believe that we need to expedite some affairs but if we must pursue these routes then review from the SC and/or Cabinet and/or the Court must be allowed.
 
Hmmm. I could have sworn I made an earlier post in this thread...

At any rate -

I support a war powers act given a legitimate and real state of war as we are experiencing now.


R
 
I don't like this act very much, but I do like parts. Now I have not been like flem and been around for the NPD and even fought them but, I have read up a bit on it. If I remember right, Pixidance suspended the constitution. In my eyes the constitution are the highest laws of this fine region. This Act bypasses the constitution and with it is impossible to follow the laws of the act and the laws written in the constitution. I am sure flems motives on this were the correct one, to preserve this fine democracy. In my eyes this act would destroy it.

This act would allow The Lexicon to succeed in their conquest of overthrowing our government. While it wouldn't put the Lexicon's in power, it puts a Lexicon-esq system in place, where the High Council would be like our Cabinet, it would not have elections and it would have almost no checks on it. If you don't like what the delegate or another Cabinet member does, you can not impeach them anymore. The delegate can eject with only the Cabinet check. The MoIA can deny any RA app without any grounds! Why so much power is placed with the MoIA alone. This government under this act is no longer a government of the people, or the RA, it is a government of the Cabinet, every other check is out the window.

I do however have noticed the surge of RA applications during war time, and would support an act which involves fixing it, but it would need a check on it. I also like how this act makes it easy for the delegate to eject, but I found that the RA was more then adequate the last time this happened. I think the court taking care of treason, is a better idea. I do like the general idea of most of these, but I do not think this act is how to go about it.

Solidarity. Until they all go home,
-Pick
 
Blue Wolf II:
*Blue Wolf remembers how one time he was rejected as a RA because he was a raider and how those laws that kept him out still exist today

I think we already have measures in the Cons. to deal with this as it is...
Click to expand...
Not true, BW. Tresville unlawfully removed our RV status just before elections so we could not vote. I do believe I filed for his impeachment but it was merely for theatrics as he had reached his term limit. The trial never had a chance to get started before elections had already come and gone. In fact, I criticized him over it in IRC saying that he had completely disregarded the constitution and he replied with something along the lines of, "fuck the constitution" and then claimed that I was simply trying to take advantage of it.

Back to the subject:
I do believe that our processes need to be streamlined significantly in the event of war but the power needs to remain in the hands of the people. The people need to have the ultimate authority over whether or not they will allow something to happen. That is The North Pacific.
 
:headbang: So how about this, then:

Some modifications to Flem's original draft:
The War Powers Act

The provisions of this act may be invoked in the event of war (declared or apparent) being waged against the North Pacific Government, delegate or community, by combined vote of the Cabinet and Security Council of the North Pacific, by a 75% majority vote.

Seeing that The North Pacific finds itself in a period of war and attack. Until such time as the crisis is over, or until the provisions of this act are revoked as outlined below...

1. All Delegate and Vice Delegate elections are suspended. Elections for other government positions shall continue as scheduled.

2. The MoIIA has the right to refuse any Regional Assembly application, given sufficient reason to believe that the application is related to the enemy in some way. Denial is subject to a Cabinet Vote. The applicant has the right to be notified as to the reasons for his denial, in addition to a public statement explaining the denial.

3. The delegate has the right to eject and ban nations, except current RA Members, from the region, subject to review by the cabinet and RA.

4. Forum Admins have the right to ban, IP ban or otherwise restrict the posting of those seen by them to be acting against the region (except RA members), again subject to cabinet and RA review.

5. The cabinet may remove (by simple majority vote) from the RA any nation giving comfort to, aiding, passing information to or otherwise supporting any region or group at war with TNP. This would be subject to review by the Regional Assembly, again by simple majority vote.

6. The war powers outlined above are immediately nullified following the signing of any surrender articles, peace treaties, or similar by the Government of the North Pacific. In addition, the Regional Assembly shall vote on the continuation of these powers once every 30 days the powers listed above are in force. If 50%+1 of the voting RA members are against continuation of these powers, with a quorum participating, the powers listed above shall be nullified immediately.
Click to expand...

Changes made:
  • Smashed together Preamble Paragraphs 1 and 2 because it didn't make sense to me to have them separate.
  • Changed enactment requirements to 75% majority of Cabinet/SC combo, removed RA from that entirely. The RA doesn't vote on things fast enough to be counted on in an emergency. (credit to Dalimbar, Flem)
  • Changed Article 1 to include only Del and VD elections, specified that all other positions continue as scheduled.
  • Article 2 now requires some reasoning behind the denial, and requires notification of reasoning for denial (credit to Dalimbar)
  • Articles 3 and 4 subject to RA approval/review. (credit to BW, Fedele)
  • Articles 3 and 4 do not affect current RA members. (credit to HC - remember that Article 5 outlines how to remove them if need be.)
  • Article 6 removed completely. (credit to about half the people who posted)
  • Article 7 (now 6) replaced with my version. Didn't see too many comments on that, except for DD's, which seems to agree with me to some extent.
  • Various and sundry capitalization and punctuation errors.
 
The War Powers Act

The provisions of this act may be invoked in the event of war (declared or apparent) being waged against the North Pacific Government, delegate or community, by combined vote of the Cabinet and Security Council of the North Pacific, by a 75% majority vote.

Seeing that The North Pacific finds itself in a period of war and attack. Until such time as the crisis is over, or until the provisions of this act are revoked as outlined below...

1. All Delegate and Vice Delegate elections are suspended. Elections for other government positions shall continue as scheduled.

2. The MoIIA has the right to refuse any Regional Assembly application, given sufficient reason to believe that the application is related to the enemy in some way. Denial is subject to a Cabinet Vote. The applicant has the right to be notified as to the reasons for his denial, in addition to a public statement explaining the denial.

3. The delegate has the right to eject and ban nations, except current RA Members, from the region, subject to review by the cabinet and RA.

4. Forum Admins have the right to ban, IP ban or otherwise restrict the posting of those seen by them to be acting against the region (except RA members), again subject to cabinet and RA review.

5. The cabinet may remove (by simple majority vote) from the RA any nation giving comfort to, aiding, passing information to or otherwise supporting any region or group at war with TNP. This would be subject to review by the Regional Assembly, again by simple majority vote.

6. The war powers outlined above are immediately nullified following the signing of any surrender articles, peace treaties, or similar by the Government of the North Pacific. In addition, the Regional Assembly shall vote on the continuation of these powers once every 30 days the powers listed above are in force. If 50%+1 of the voting RA members are against continuation of these powers, with a quorum participating, the powers listed above shall be nullified immediately.
Click to expand...

FOR.
 
As far as the original bill goes, I am against.

But, with the changes Hersfold made, I am for.

The revised proposal from Hersfold offers more details and changes things that seemed potentially dangerous. Although I think you meant MoIA, not MoIIA. :lol:
 
Having previously been Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs, I'm pretty sure the abbreviation is MoIIA, Saj. ;)

Any more comments? Keep in mind we're not actually voting on this yet.
 
And the democracy returned.

1. Much better, there's no reason to suspend _all_ elections because of war. I think no government halts all elections just because there's some fighting going on.

2. What about the facts, some evidence or applicants public swapping? Just because there's "sufficient reason to believe that the application is related to the enemy", there's right to refuse application, so no evidence is needed for refusing. Sounds bit dictatorish to me. Although "applicant has the right to be notified as to the reasons for his denial", should he/she to have right to defend oneself too. Just in case of propaganda or something.

The rest of the act, I have no comments 'cos they sound good.
 
Fair enough. General discussion and the input of Hers has, as so often is the case, improved on what I origianlly wrote.

Since we are now in a period of conflict, can I request that this moves to a vote fairly quickly?

Oh, Perkus, historical note: Actually, Britain did halt all elections, national and local, between 1939 and 1945 because of WW2. I think we did the same thing between 1914 and 1918. But I agree, it is only the delegate elections that need be suspended.
 
Well, since the new draft has (what appears to be) unanimous support so far, including that of the original author, I think we can toss this up for a vote now. I'll go find wizard.
 
Hersfold:
Having previously been Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs, I'm pretty sure the abbreviation is MoIIA, Saj. ;)

Any more comments? Keep in mind we're not actually voting on this yet.
Click to expand...
Oh, right. For some reason you people combined the two jobs... lol.

Anyway, I think a vote would be a good idea.
 
flemingovia:
Oh, Perkus, historical note: Actually, Britain did halt all elections, national and local, between 1939 and 1945 because of WW2. I think we did the same thing between 1914 and 1918.
Click to expand...
Heavens, I did forgot those "little" fights ;) (yes, I'm just kidding)
But anyway, bit different times when the whole world is fighting or civil war going on, than two regions battling :bat: thru night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top