Legal Reform

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
The purpose of this reform is to update all the laws carried over from the prior Constitution. That and nothing else.

TNP Law# 1
Section 1

1 - All government officials, including Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Prime Minister...

Section 3: Penalties for Violation

1 - This Oath shall be binding on all government officials as previously covered, and violations of said Oath may be ground for indictment of impeachment charges in a legal Court of The North Pacific, pursuant to the guidelines and procedures laid out in Article IV of The North Pacific Constitution, and The North Pacific Legal Code., and the guidelines of The Ministry of Justice.
Click to expand...


TNP LAW 6
Ministry of Communications

Section 1. The North Pacific Wire.

The North Pacific Wire shall be the official News Publication of the region. The North Pacific Wire shall be administered by the Ministry of Communications.
Click to expand...

A Ministry of Communications is obsolete and the Freedom of Information Act and successive policies of Interior Ministers have called for openess and accurate reporting, when not done by the Delegate themselves.

TNP LAW 14
Wartime Provisions

Section 1: Wartime Provisions

No player maintaining a nation in a region at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities. Any player found doing so will be stripped of membership in the Regional Assembly and subject to banishment from the region. A "region at war" is any region which has made a formal declaration, or made acts of war against The North Pacific, or vice versa, as deemed by decision by the Security Council majority of Cabinet. War does not constitute actions taken by or against the North Pacific Army unless the conflict meets the conditions above. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty, surrender terms, or similar, is/are recognized.
Click to expand...

TNP Law# 22

1B - Exceptions may be given to North Pacific Army and North Pacific Intelligence Agency members, with the consent of and notification by both: 1) the Minister of Defense or NPIA Director, respectively, and 2) the Prime Minister the Delegate. This exception is only valid when on officially sanctioned missions for the purposes of preserving regional security and the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure that the change to Law 14 is legsally sufficient. The Cabinet is noy a legal entity with a set membership or legal function; in its current form it is merely the principal assistants of the Delegate.
It would make more sense to have the RA be the body that in fact adopts a declaration of war, or the Delegate.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I'm not sure that the change to Law 14 is legsally sufficient. The Cabinet is noy a legal entity with a set membership or legal function; in its current form it is merely the principal assistants of the Delegate.
It would make more sense to have the RA be the body that in fact adopts a declaration of war, or the Delegate.
Click to expand...
CLO sound better?

Lets see what others think first.
 
I would oppose giving the CLO more power unless it was:

1) Enlarged to maybe 5 people
2) Made a special committee of the RA instead of a separate enitity
3) Was elected to shorter terms- IE, we have CLO elections during both the delegate election and the court positions election.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
I would oppose giving the CLO more power unless it was:

1) Enlarged to maybe 5 people
2) Made a special committee of the RA instead of a separate enitity
3) Was elected to shorter terms- IE, we have CLO elections during both the delegate election and the court positions election.
Click to expand...
Make the separate legislation if you feel its necessary.
 
I'll wait and see if any laws giving it more power come to vote.

In its current form, its fine and doesn't need to be changed, but if more responsibilities are given to it, I will introduce legislation.
 
This isn't the first time legislative proiposals that sought to expand the authority of the CLO have come forth. I have tried to urge resistance to such efforts because the CLO was intended not to have definite affirmative powers.

What this tells me is that we may need to seriously look at the formal revival of that special elected standing committee of the RA that was the Security Council under the last Constitution.

And Khark, the space between general and judicial elections are not equal in length and coming up with yet another election schedule to have a committee elected for an even shorter term than four months would mean we'd always be holding elections for something. (Maybe not literally, but you get the idea.) One reason there was support for changing the executive terms of office from three to four months was to reduce that feeling. So I don't know if a shorter term for the CLO or someother repl;acement would be practical.

Mr. Speaker, I went back and looked at my comments on Law 14 when there was discussion of Knark's proposal. I made the exact same observation then, that the authority in Law 14 given top the Security Council ought to be given to whatever authority had the power to declare war under the current constitutiion. And as I noted then, that would have to be the Delegate, or the RA.
 
Now that I'm back:

I would tend to agree with Gross about Law 14. I don't think as an unelected body the Cabinet can have the power to decide who is considered at war with us. Personally I'd say the only body with the legitimacy under the constitution currently is the RA. Or the CLO needs its purpose redefining.

Everything else looks good to me.
 
To those wishing a greater role of SC or CLO in the matters of war, then we'll deal with it on that respective bill. My position is to not let it stall meaningful legal reform and fix it later if an addition is needed on the issue of war.
 
In other words, you are willing to have the Delegate have unilateral authority to declare war without any counterbalance whatsioever. Very bad idea, enough so that I will have to oppose this bill unless that is changed now, and not put off for later.
 
Khark, who appoints and removes the Cabinet at will?

If a Cabinet member doesn't agree with the Delegate on an issue, the Delegate can remove that individual and generate the result the Delegate wants. In my book, that vests real power of the Cabinet solely in the Delegate's hands.
 
That's because you've been the delegate.

I suppose certain people like the fact that the delegate has to consult a non-existent body to declare war, as it effectively prevents war from being declared.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Khark, who appoints and removes the Cabinet at will?

If a Cabinet member doesn't agree with the Delegate on an issue, the Delegate can remove that individual and generate the result the Delegate wants. In my book, that vests real power of the Cabinet solely in the Delegate's hands.
Click to expand...
Why do you think I introduced and pinned the proposals for the Security Council? I want a resolution, but until a real answer comes there's no point in miring the current government in a legal mess just because some of us never liked the idea of an appointed cabinet.

Myself included.

We need a resolution, until a better one comes a long this is it.
 
I see compromise and negotiation are alive and well in TNP.

Ask people what they think, if there are any objections, ignore them and carry on regardless.

I don't understand the "well we've got to do something, it'll do till later" attitude. If we're going to have to come back and fix it later anyway, why bother changing it now? At least at the moment, the worst that happens is nothing. With the cabinet in charge we could be at war with half of NS by the time we fix it.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
Because neither side ever budges, so we have to rely on trying to get a slight majority.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if there had been a little more than 8 hours before it was made evident there would be no change to the proposal, regardless of peoples objections, compromise would be a little more attainable.
 
Namyeknom:
Outer Kharkistania:
Because neither side ever budges, so we have to rely on trying to get a slight majority.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if there had been a little more than 8 hours before it was made evident there would be no change to the proposal, regardless of peoples objections, compromise would be a little more attainable.
Click to expand...
The original objection was made 4 days before the vote was called, your inactivity should not be an issue.
 
mr_sniffles:
Namyeknom:
Outer Kharkistania:
Because neither side ever budges, so we have to rely on trying to get a slight majority.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if there had been a little more than 8 hours before it was made evident there would be no change to the proposal, regardless of peoples objections, compromise would be a little more attainable.
Click to expand...
The original objection was made 4 days before the vote was called, your inactivity should not be an issue.
Click to expand...
My sincere apologies to the RA, evidently 10 hours after the initial post is considered tardy these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top