Military and Foreign Policy Amendment

O

Outer Kharkistania

TNPer
I noticed the constitution was lacking much detail on how a the region would go about waging war and such, so I wrote up a quick little proposal.

Amendment:
1. War shall only be declared by act of the Regional Assembly.
2. The Regional Assembly may vote to force the Delegate into peace negotiations to end a conflict, if it does not harm the region's security.
3. The delegate may carry out police actions and deploy troops to hostile territory for up to a week without a declaration of war, but must have a declaration of war or other approval from the RA after that point.
4. The Delegate is commander in chief of the NPA, and no outside body shall interfere with the delegate's management of the NPA or his/her waging of war, with the exception of the above powers given to the RA.
5. The NPA itself is a non-political body and not part of any branch of government, although the Minister of Defense is to be considered an Executive official and subject to that branch's rules and regulations.
Click to expand...

I'm open to any changes and nitpicking on the exact terms and conditions, as well as additions.
 
I think we need an NPA code along with this or else it might be problematic. And I think we need Elu in on this.
 
A request for input from the longtime veterans of the NPA might also be a good idea.

One of the problems in the process that brought about the current Constitution was the repeal of things like the NPA Code. That code, which can easily be access through the links to prior constitutions and codes, would make a good starting point, We shouldn't need to re-invent the entire thing from scratch.
 
I have a general personnel problem in the External Affairs area, which is causing some delay. I think I'll have to move ahead with Internal Affairs first.
 
Generally speaking the Constitution should contain provisions for how the region can enter and exit war. Defining war isn't particularly necessary, it's more a political than a material thing anyway. An NPA code isn't really necessary, and never really has been. Defining things in general should be shied away from as much as possible.
 
If thou art going to use the word 'compel', then thou shouldst go ahead and use 'insist' or some variation thereof. To compel the Delegate gives the connotation that the Assembly will give the Delegate a strongly worded letter that he/she is free to ignore.

Either way, I am against such a clause as number 2. If thou art going to emphasize the Delegate-elect as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, then shouldn't it be left up to the Delegate to decide when the Army's operation is over and not the Assembly?
 
No, because there has to be oversight.

Otherwise a delegate might use the NPA as his own private army to take over, hold, or destroy regions for reasons that have nothing to do with TNP.

That's why for any extended operations, a war must be declared. After such, the delegate has free reign over waging that war until a peace agreement is signed.
 
Hmm, I suppose I should have asked how thou definest 'conflict'. Is it the one week deployment and police action, the war, or both?
 
3. is unnecessary because the CLO can already halt anything the Delegate does with the NPA. Check on power = preserved.
 
Heft:
3. is unnecessary because the CLO can already halt anything the Delegate does with the NPA. Check on power = preserved.
Click to expand...
The CLO is a 3-person body. Get the right people elected and you can essentially control the government, even now.

I am in favor of having powers traditionally associated with a legislature be given to the Regional Assembly, as opposed to a shadowy triumvirate.
 
Not necessarily. The Assembly has the power to remove the members of the CLO and the power of the CLO only overshadows the Executive, not the Legislature or the Courts.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
Heft:
3. is unnecessary because the CLO can already halt anything the Delegate does with the NPA. Check on power = preserved.
Click to expand...
The CLO is a 3-person body. Get the right people elected and you can essentially control the government, even now.

I am in favor of having powers traditionally associated with a legislature be given to the Regional Assembly, as opposed to a shadowy triumvirate.
Click to expand...
We have a body that's seemingly sole purpose is to provide a check on the Executive's power, but we can't trust it? It's hardly a shadowy triumvirate when everything they do is open to public inquiry and they can be relatively easily removed if they abuse their power. I understand the need to create a circle of checks and balances, but it already exists, and thus does not need to be created.
 
The process of removing the CLO is a legislative motion.

The CLO can vote to stop all legislative motions.

While it would create a firestorm of strife, the CLO could conceivably stop attempts to remove one of its members.

But that's not the point. This proposal is about Military Policy, so the CLO can come another day. Unlike some people, I don't attach CLO-related clauses to bills that have nothing to do with the CLO.

Since only the RA has the right to declare war, logically, it should be the only body that can make peace and definitively end a conflict. Clause 3 stays.
 
Incorrect. According to the Constitution Article 4 Section 1 Line 3, the CLO only has power over the Executive. The only interaction the CLO has with the Assembly is the ability to bring an emergency vote before them. Since removing a member of the CLO IS legislative, as thou hast said, then the CLO would not be able to stop a removal of their members.

TNP Constitution:
3. The CLO may, with the approval of at least three of the four members, place an emergency temporary halt on any specific action undertaken by the Executive branch.
4. The CLO may vote to immediately bring any piece of legislation to an emergency vote before the Assembly.
Click to expand...

EDIT:

Heft's argument has nothing to do with adding an unneeded clause concerning the CLO, but rather the necessity of an included clause because of the function already provided by the CLO.
 
Damn I misread that.

Thanks for pointing that out.

However, I still stand by giving the RA the right to make peace, as it compliments its right to declare war.
 
I don't believe I ever said the RA shouldn't be able to force peace. I don't see how Clause 3 affects that.
 
I thought the issue was with the RA having the power to stop a police action by not giving the Delegate a declaration of war.

Clause 3 is a security clause in case the delegate has to move troops into some region or another and can't wait for the RA to have a vote on it for risk of having an attack on TNP or some other reason.

I make it only a week because the RA vote should be done by then and they can decide whether a particular conflict is worth pursuing further.
 
Without that clause it's already implied that the Delegate can deploy troops essentially wherever and however he likes, at least to me.
 
I have some problems with the overall wording, but problems especially with items #2 and #3.

I especially deplore the whole concept of 'police actions' as being a neat little item to allow war to be waged in fact but not name. It would give authority to a delegate to wage war without the approval of the people's representatives.

Such a function would be better served by permitting 'police actions' under a specific set of rules such as a 'war powers act' that governs such actions in detail requiring declaration of war or withdrawal after a specific period of time, and a restriction on use of internal (to the region) 'police actions'.
 
I would love an example of when such a "police action" might be needed? I have been in this region over four years, and I have never seen a situation where such a thing was necessary. If a region is hostile, we can defend against them without needing to set foot on their soil. If they are annoying recruiters, there is no need to demean ourselves by invading to deal with one or two childish posters.

Also, TNP has a history of folks looking for loopholes. I can see endless "is this a police action or is it a war" debates arising out of this legislation, with delegates using the subtle distinction as a justification for war.

Finally, we all know that a week is a long time in NS. A lot can be done in a week, and if we are embroiled in a conflict at the delegate's whim for a week, it will be almost impossible for the RA to turn around and say "pull out now."

I see no need for this legislation, and oppose.
 
"War" is generally mostly a political mechanism rather than a material one anyway. Defining a war in the context as defining what the NPA can and cannot do and what the Delegate can or can't do rather ignores the reality of the situation. Any region worth declaring war on will also most likely be essentially invulnerable to direct NPA action of any sort.
 
I'm withdrawing this legislation until the Cabinet finishes setting up the Internal Ministries and begins organizing the External Ministries and the NPA.

I will seek their opinions on the matter once we get to that point, and I plan to ask for the NPA and retired NPA's opinion as well.

For now, its up to the Speaker if he wants to leave this thread open for future discussion or close it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top