Regarding Ministers

[Outer Kharkistania]

I would like to propose an amendment to the Constitution regarding ministers.

Regarding The Cabinet
*The Regional Assembly shall have the power to block a delegate's choices for Cabinet Member should they feel that person is not suitable for the position.
*A 60% supermajority will be required to block a candidate.
*In the case of a blocked Minister, the delegate shall have to choose another prospective minister to replace him/her.
*Finally, the delegate shall have to power to determine the style of said Cabinet Members

I felt that since cabinet members will no longer be elected, this is a way to prevent a delegate from filling up the cabinet with unsuitable candidates as a form of favoritism. In addition, if the RA knows the Delegate's choice for the cabinet is likely to fail, this will allow them to prevent them from taking office in the first place, rather than the current alternative of waiting for that member of the cabinet to screw up and then go through a messy Impeachment.

I hope this passes before voting begins/ends.

 

[Vrtbovska Zahrada]

I second.

 

[Joshua]

I agree with this measure.

 

[HEM]

I approve.

 

[Westwind]

Why not change it, so that all Minister appointments are sent to the RA for confirmation vote. Then a supermajority may override the appointment.

There needs to be a time limit though, so confirmations don't get stuck in the RA for lack of activity.

 

[Outer Kharkistania]

I think it kind of already says that.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Consider the possibility of offices not being called "Ministries" and their heads not being called "Minister."

The only example we have at the moment is not a Ministry, and is not headed by a Minister.

 

[Outer Kharkistania]

Edited to cabinet members.

 

[Westwind]

I'd suggest that since the Delegate "is authorized to style his own title", that the delegate also choose the Cabinet members titles.

 

[Outer Kharkistania]

^Added^

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Question:

Why do you feel this requires a Constitutional amendment, as opposed to the enactment of a law?

If the underlying substance implements what is in the Constitution, is there some provision in the Constitution that this proposal contradicts (thus requiring a Constitutional amendment)? Otherwise I would think that adopting it as a law should suffice.

 

[Westwind]

This would have to be a constitutional amendment, as it is in opposition to Article III, Section 1 of the constitution:

3. The Delegate is responsible to ensure the good governance of the Executive Branch of TNP and may appoint and remove at will executive officers that serve under him.

This proposal removes the Delegates free will in the appointment and removal of Cabinet Officers.

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

I agree with the measure in general. Good for balance of powers.