The Security Council

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
I think we need an honest discussion to settle this matter once and for all. No one will get what they want but at least we'll shut up about it, and bitch only about how the right perfect one never passed.

Options:

1a)Some Pre-Constitutionalists feel we need a mechanism to represent the RA or exist as a counter-balance to the security powers of the Delegate; the elected Security Council of the prior Government was the strongest, most active, most electorally competitive, and only the second most infiltrated area of the former government. (Deputies having access to cabinet was more a continuing security risk than Limi.)

Basically, we reintroduce the old system with as yet another group of elected officials to not only watch over the executive branch in terms of security, but also to reject, to affirm or deny security actions, and forms a civillian intelligence community. Members of other governmental positions (especially CLO or cabinet) would be disquallified from the council. (maybe, CLO double dipping merely confirms the repetitious role.)

1b) Give all proposed powers to the CLO, granting them powers and responsibility of intelligence and security. Touchy subject: are they entrusted with a security vote, a security vote temporarily halting executive action until the RA decides, or continue their role of informing the RA through the Speaker but with a backstage pass to security.

2)Keeping in spirit of the new Constitution, we could form the council without appointments nor as representatives. A democratically acting council of nations with high influence, monitoring and countering the vast powers of the executive. Any nation above minnow gets a vote, encouraging locals to invest in security and presenting a major new force against any rogues.

This is a council that will be Consitutionally bound and acts independently on decisions decided by a majority vote. Monitored and presided over by the Vice Del.

2b)
Basically the above would be creating a junta that can topple both rogue and democratic Dels if acting in unison. handing power over to unelected, some even unknown endo-tarters with possible malicious intent. We could regulate them to have the RA control or direct them, but basically the same dangers we have with rogue Delegates applies to them as well.

The V Del would have less powers under 2b; reducing it to the instrument of the RA. 2a would entrust the Vice Del to lead them in whatever style they wish, unless hated and plotted against by a majority of the Council.

3) ????

So whack at it! I'll collect the best proposals, then hold a poll. The most supported and over scrutinized proposal will be birthed into language and voted on.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Give total autonomy to the Delegate. That always works best, especially in TNP.
Click to expand...
It works for a while, but then all hell breaks loose. Oh, wait, all hell breaks loose no matter what scheme is applied! :lol:
 
mr_sniffles:
Heft:
wait what

What's the problem we're trying to fix?
Click to expand...
There's been an argument for civillian input into Security measures.
Click to expand...
I completely missed that one. If you want input into "security" matters, then get yourself in a position to provide meaningful input. Adding a Security Council won't accomplish anything productive.
 
Heft:
mr_sniffles:
Heft:
wait what

What's the problem we're trying to fix?
Click to expand...
There's been an argument for civillian input into Security measures.
Click to expand...
I completely missed that one. If you want input into "security" matters, then get yourself in a position to provide meaningful input. Adding a Security Council won't accomplish anything productive.
Click to expand...
The prior Constitution and those stalling other bills that gleam on this matter says otherwise.
 
How about if we rejigged it, so the Delegate is the one to initiate action on security matters (ejecting nations, declaring war, etc, etc), but the decision would have to be ratified by the CLO? The delegate can't unilaterally declare war on someone, and the CLO retains its role as a checks and balances board rather than one which sets policy on its own?

For example, another region, lets call them Region G, does some sabre rattling. The Delegate believes we should show them who they're messing with, puts forward the motion to the CLO to declare a state of war with them. The CLO reviews, and votes. And the delegate can then either declare war publicly, or wait for something else to happen to re-submit the motion.

Thoughts, problems, issues?
 
Again, any plan that gives more power to the CLO should require a slight enlargement of the CLO and a redefinition of what it is.

As stated before, I think that the CLO and the RA should have the same powers, but that the CLO would be made up of several active members of the RA (they would still be elected, but inactivity could be grounds for removal) and would be used in situations where waiting for the RA to act would take too long.

Additionally, if we make the CLO more powerful as a check in the check and balances system, we also have to put an additional check on its own power. As such, I suggest the RA have the power to over-rule any CLO decision in a regular vote, and the Courts should have the power to declare CLO actions unconstitutional. (if they don't already have that power)
 
Outer Kharkistania:
As stated before, I think that the CLO and the RA should have the same powers, but that the CLO would be made up of several active members of the RA (they would still be elected, but inactivity could be grounds for removal) and would be used in situations where waiting for the RA to act would take too long.
Click to expand...
I believe that is exactly what the SC was for.

Technically the CLO wouldn't have any more power, currently if the cabinet or Delegate declared war, the CLO could vote to stop it. This just re-orders the proceedings.

I'd be happy with extending the CLO to 5 members. I think security matter probably need a voting panel that can come to a majority, rather than them not happening purely because the vote is tied.

I'd also be happy codifying RA power to balance out the CLO. Perhaps a "if x members of the RA call for a vote to over-rule the CLO decision, there is an immediate 7 day vote of the RA" type of thing.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
Additionally, if we make the CLO more powerful as a check in the check and balances system, we also have to put an additional check on its own power. As such, I suggest the RA have the power to over-rule any CLO decision in a regular vote, and the Courts should have the power to declare CLO actions unconstitutional. (if they don't already have that power)
Click to expand...
So, you suggest that the RA would have the power to overrule the CLO's decision to overrule the RA? Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of the CLO? If the RA is bent on a decision that the CLO perceives as detrimental to the region, the RA would just vote again to overrule the CLO's decision. Then, depending on how many loopholes are in this suggestion, the CLO could overrule the RA's decision to overrule the CLO's decision to overrule the RA... etc etc.

Anyway I was prodded to give my two cents on the issue... *is momentarily distracted by emoticons* oh wow! :2c: nice.

I am still familiarizing myself with the TNP system... it would appear that this is fundamentally a good idea due to the nature and size of the RA and TNP government, however the CLO's responsibilities and the SC's responsibilities seem to overlap a little bit, they seem a little redundant in the presence of each other, when I can't see any reason why they can't be the same council.

But I'll wait until more discussion and when I'm better informed before further comment.
 
Actually you're very much intune to what we've been proposing as one suggestion is to fuse the two bodies together. Having CLO with SC powers or refashioning the CLO into a Security Council.

The actual problem is what powers and how do we select them, if at all?
 
Namyeknom:
Outer Kharkistania:
As stated before, I think that the CLO and the RA should have the same powers, but that the CLO would be made up of several active members of the RA (they would still be elected, but inactivity could be grounds for removal) and would be used in situations where waiting for the RA to act would take too long.
Click to expand...
I believe that is exactly what the SC was for.

Technically the CLO wouldn't have any more power, currently if the cabinet or Delegate declared war, the CLO could vote to stop it. This just re-orders the proceedings.

I'd be happy with extending the CLO to 5 members. I think security matter probably need a voting panel that can come to a majority, rather than them not happening purely because the vote is tied.

I'd also be happy codifying RA power to balance out the CLO. Perhaps a "if x members of the RA call for a vote to over-rule the CLO decision, there is an immediate 7 day vote of the RA" type of thing.
Click to expand...
If a vote is tied, the Speaker breaks it as in the old SC, the current CLO, and legislation up for vote now.
 
mr_sniffles:
Actually you're very much intune to what we've been proposing as one suggestion is to fuse the two bodies together. Having CLO with SC powers or refashioning the CLO into a Security Council.

The actual problem is what powers and how do we select them, if at all?
Click to expand...
I would go out on a limb, a controversial one, and give them the power to veto RA decisions and call re-elections of Delegates, the latter which must be justified to the court.
 
Falconias:
mr_sniffles:
Actually you're very much intune to what we've been proposing as one suggestion is to fuse the two bodies together. Having CLO with SC powers or refashioning the CLO into a Security Council.

The actual problem is what powers and how do we select them, if at all?
Click to expand...
I would go out on a limb, a controversial one, and give them the power to veto RA decisions and call re-elections of Delegates, the latter which must be justified to the court.
Click to expand...
I would argue strongly against that. The purpose of any smaller body within the RA as I see it, is to come to decisions quickly, when waiting for an RA vote would be against the interests of the region.

However, the CLO is there to serve the RA, not the other way around.

If a vote is tied, the Speaker breaks it as in the old SC, the current CLO, and legislation up for vote now.
Click to expand...

Where is that in the constitution? I'm not doubting you, but I hadn't seen it during my refresh run. The majority issue isn't anything major from my point of view, either way.
 
Namyeknom:
If a vote is tied, the Speaker breaks it as in the old SC, the current CLO, and legislation up for vote now.
Click to expand...

Where is that in the constitution? I'm not doubting you, but I hadn't seen it during my refresh run. The majority issue isn't anything major from my point of view, either way.
Click to expand...
It's was in place during the prior Constitution with the SC, and is basic parliamentary tradition.
 
Pre-Constitutionalists
Click to expand...

Now I feel old.


I'm not sure how I feel about this. When I played before (apparently a new Constitution was passed in the meantime?), the SC worked out pretty well provided there were active people on the council. I think it's a good concept, but if there are other ideas I'd be open to those as well.
 
Namyeknom:
Falconias:
mr_sniffles:
Actually you're very much intune to what we've been proposing as one suggestion is to fuse the two bodies together. Having CLO with SC powers or refashioning the CLO into a Security Council.

The actual problem is what powers and how do we select them, if at all?
Click to expand...
I would go out on a limb, a controversial one, and give them the power to veto RA decisions and call re-elections of Delegates, the latter which must be justified to the court.
Click to expand...
I would argue strongly against that. The purpose of any smaller body within the RA as I see it, is to come to decisions quickly, when waiting for an RA vote would be against the interests of the region.

However, the CLO is there to serve the RA, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Hmm well that's what I believed the idea of the Security Council/CLO was, to do checks and balances, and handle matters of security where the RA may not be able to act in the interests of the regions efficiently and informatively?
 
Ermarian:
Power is safer in the hands of a group of people than a single delegate, surely.
Click to expand...
Depends on the delegate and the group of people. A group of people is safer in terms of being less likely to take decisive action, decisive action being anything from repelling a legitimate threat to overthrowing the "legal" government.

The basic fundamental purpose of the CLO is the same as the SC: the provide a check on the power of the executive. Creating two bodies for the same fundamental purpose is just silly. I don't personally see any problem that needs to be remedied here, either. The system seems to be working perfectly fine, from a security standpoint.
 
Falconias:
Hmm well that's what I believed the idea of the Security Council/CLO was, to do checks and balances, and handle matters of security where the RA may not be able to act in the interests of the regions efficiently and informatively?
Click to expand...
The Legislative is balanced out by the executive, we`re going to need evidence that the voters are acting against their own interests.
 
So I take it fusing CLO with SC powers and increasing membership by one more seat, is to be the most inoffensive idea?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top