Proposed Amendment to the Constitution

O

Outer Kharkistania

TNPer
Proposal- an addition to the Constitution

Section 3: Miscellany

11. No nation may be barred from a Governmental or Semi-Official Position, Appointment, or Post by virtue of their Influence Level. The Security Council is exempt from this article, as it would interfere with its functioning.
Click to expand...

EDIT:Changed the proposal
 
I actually agree...I think that influence does not accuratly reflect on your dedication to any region. Even more so in a feeder where there are MANY more nations then the average region.

Plus if you are serving in the NPA, influence level restrictions really aren't fair.
 
I fail to see how this reflects a fundamental value of democracy and liberty that requires it to be enshired in the Bill of Rights without regard to the form and structure of the governmental authorities of the region to the end of time.

This is more a proposal that deals with the technical aspects of qualification for office, and from that perspective, it should be placed in the Constitution, if adopted at all.
 
I disagree.

This is concerning a right to run for office, not part of the procedure of doing so.
 
The Security Council isn't an elected office, and the requirements to be able to run for an office isn't found in the Bill of Rights, but in the Constitution.
 
This covers appointments as well, so your first argument is moot.

While I believe this is an inalienable right, I am willing to change it to a Constitutional amendment if that increases its chances of passing, and I'll even begrudgingly give the Security Council an exception in the legislation, so long as it covers ALL other offices.

However, I will wait to see what others' input is before making any of these changes.
 
This is actually a very good idea. And I'm not just saying that because I'm a minnow.

High levels of influence does not a good player automatically make. TNP is also one of the hardest regions to raise influence, we've got, what, 40 players who are minnows or higher? In a region of ~ 3000?! It's a complete nonsense and elitism of the highest order that we're beginning to base things on influence and also gives rise to the 'old boys club' argument. If I was a new player coming to view how things work and saw the Security Council headline (Truckler? Are you freaking kidding me?!) I'd think "Bother this nonsense" and move to the next region that sent me a polite adspam telegram.
 
Every office has qualifications. Some disagree with the 30 day RA membership requirement. Some disagree with the idea that you have to check in to the forum at least once a month as a member of the RA to keep your seat or once every two weeks to keep an elected or appointed office of the government.

The Security Council is no different. There are qualifications to be included. These qualifications are available to all nations of the region. A bit of swapping and some elapsed time will get any nation over Minnow status.

It isn't a matter of bias since the qualification can be met through a bit of work. If there were regulations preventing a nation from seeking to increase its own Influence level through said work then there may be grounds for such claims of bias. As it exists presently I do not believe that to be the case and will therefore oppose this amendment, as it pertains to the Bill or Rights or the Constitution.
 
Gracius Maximus:
It isn't a matter of bias since the qualification can be met through a bit of work. If there were regulations preventing a nation from seeking to increase its own Influence level through said work then there may be grounds for such claims of bias. As it exists presently I do not believe that to be the case and will therefore oppose this amendment, as it pertains to the Bill or Rights or the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Disagree. To use a strained analogy, it'd be like Russia stating that in order to qualify for an office you have to stand outside naked for three days. Some people will manage it, but so what? It proves nothing about their abilities beyond the fact that they can stay in one place for a long time, which as abilities go is right up there with the ability to tie your shoelaces.

Not to mention the fact it discriminates against those whose WA nations are in the NPA and need to leave the region frequently.

I can live with the security council, but I'd take issue with it if it started becoming a trend.
 
Joining the NPA is voluntary. Claiming that taking part in a voluntary body prevents you from taking part in another voluntary body doesn't make logical sense to me. It isn't discrimination, it is a choice.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Joining the NPA is voluntary. Claiming that taking part in a voluntary body prevents you from taking part in another voluntary body doesn't make logical sense to me. It isn't discrimination, it is a choice.
Click to expand...
Unless you're claiming that TNP doesn't need an army, I fail to see how it isn't discrimination. Want to join the army? Then you've screwed yourself out of influence and won't ever be in the security council. Both are voluntary, yes, but one is clearly more necessary.
 
Here's an alternative proposal I made. Its an amendment to the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights.

Section 3: Miscellany

11. No nation may be barred from a Governmental or Semi-Official Position, Appointment, or Post by virtue of their Influence Level. The Security Council is exempt from this article, as it would interfere with its functioning.
Click to expand...

That solves the Security Council problem. I can't see why anyone would be against this now.
 
That does not change the fact that joining the army (whose purpose and existance is debateable but not relevant to this conversation) is a choice and that not everyone does so.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
Here's an alternative proposal I made. Its an amendment to the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights.

Section 3: Miscellany

11. No nation may be barred from a Governmental or Semi-Official Position, Appointment, or Post by virtue of their Influence Level. The Security Council is exempt from this article, as it would interfere with its functioning.
Click to expand...

That solves the Security Council problem. I can't see why anyone would be against this now.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Since you specify the exclusion of the Security Council then I see no reason to oppose this.
 
Gracius Maximus:
That does not change the fact that joining the army (whose purpose and existance is debateable but not relevant to this conversation) is a choice and that not everyone does so.
Click to expand...
Which is alright if you don't care about the joining the NPA; it's someone else's problem. However, it's not really fair on that someone else who does want to join the NPA (and why not? Just look at the news banner). I'd rather get rid of the Security Council than the NPA, to be frank. But we are getting off topic.

@ Khark: I would support this proposal 100%.
 
This seems like an entirely pointless proposal to address a complete non-issue. That said, since it doesn't actually do anything now, I suppose it's difficult to find grounds to oppose it (unless you count "not doing anything").
 
Outer Kharkistania:
Here's an alternative proposal I made. Its an amendment to the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights.

Section 3: Miscellany

11. No nation may be barred from a Governmental or Semi-Official Position, Appointment, or Post by virtue of their Influence Level. The Security Council is exempt from this article, as it would interfere with its functioning.
Click to expand...

That solves the Security Council problem. I can't see why anyone would be against this now.
Click to expand...
I would not oppose that.
 
Heft:
This seems like an entirely pointless proposal to address a complete non-issue. That said, since it doesn't actually do anything now, I suppose it's difficult to find grounds to oppose it (unless you count "not doing anything").
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. It's not what it does, it's what it prevents.
 
I don't think it actually prevents anything either.

Since the only position conceivably effected by Influence level are those in the Security Council and that is excluded then nothing else is relevant.

I can assume that you mean this prevents future legislation from stating that a candidate for Delegate or Vice Delegate must have X Influence level but that isn't necessarily a realistic assumption considering that anyone running for those positions would be in position to acquire the necessary Influence and since qualifications for those positions already exist.
 
Gracius Maximus:
I don't think it actually prevents anything either.

Since the only position conceivably effected by Influence level are those in the Security Council and that is excluded then nothing else is relevant.

I can assume that you mean this prevents future legislation from stating that a candidate for Delegate or Vice Delegate must have X Influence level but that isn't necessarily a realistic assumption considering that anyone running for those positions would be in position to acquire the necessary Influence and since qualifications for those positions already exist.
Click to expand...
Yeah...that's kinda the point.

I think you're also vastly overestimating the ease of raising influence in TNP.
 
TNP is a region with ALOT of influence, sitting there. In recent Nationstates Rankings it was shown that nations in the North Pacific show hugh up in the top 10 and 20 lists of Influential nations of the World, while our allies in the Pacific, where a nation Gracius Maximus is quite familiar with, Pierconium, gained Truckler recently, do not occupy a space in the top 100. Gracius Maximus's possible belief in the ease of acquiring Influence categories may therefore be excused by experience with a region where they are far, far easier to achieve.

To contrast, it took the nation of Zemnaya Svoboda around a year with over a hundred of endorsements in the North Pacific to reach Truckler. Right now, after four months as Delegate and four as Vice Delegate, with two significant ejections to its name, Zemnaya Svoboda is but a Handshaker, one step above Truckler.

And yet it is quite reasonable to permit, nay, encourage Delegates, even Vice Delegates, with "Minnow" influence as, while they will soon enough accumulate the influence to eject hordes of grunts (recent arrivals with nigh-zero numerical influence) our natives will be safe.

The only security problem presented by a Delegate with far less Influence than our more Influential nations is that there could be plants among us, but such possibilities can A) be kept track of, B) attempts to put them "over the top" would still require grunts which can be removed, C) we, as popular government, can withdraw much of their endorsement support base if such a thing were to happen.
 
Technically the ease of gaining influence in TNP is no more difficult than anywhere else. Gaining the recognition of such is the difficult bit.

This bill seems ok to me.
 
Eluvatar:
TNP is a region with ALOT of influence, sitting there. In recent Nationstates Rankings it was shown that nations in the North Pacific show hugh up in the top 10 and 20 lists of Influential nations of the World, while our allies in the Pacific, where a nation Gracius Maximus is quite familiar with, Pierconium, gained Truckler recently, do not occupy a space in the top 100. Gracius Maximus's possible belief in the ease of acquiring Influence categories may therefore be excused by experience with a region where they are far, far easier to achieve.

To contrast, it took the nation of Zemnaya Svoboda around a year with over a hundred of endorsements in the North Pacific to reach Truckler. Right now, after four months as Delegate and four as Vice Delegate, with two significant ejections to its name, Zemnaya Svoboda is but a Handshaker, one step above Truckler.

And yet it is quite reasonable to permit, nay, encourage Delegates, even Vice Delegates, with "Minnow" influence as, while they will soon enough accumulate the influence to eject hordes of grunts (recent arrivals with nigh-zero numerical influence) our natives will be safe.

The only security problem presented by a Delegate with far less Influence than our more Influential nations is that there could be plants among us, but such possibilities can A) be kept track of, B) attempts to put them "over the top" would still require grunts which can be removed, C) we, as popular government, can withdraw much of their endorsement support base if such a thing were to happen.
Click to expand...
^ what he said.
:yes:
 
Sydia:
Heft:
This seems like an entirely pointless proposal to address a complete non-issue. That said, since it doesn't actually do anything now, I suppose it's difficult to find grounds to oppose it (unless you count "not doing anything").
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. It's not what it does, it's what it prevents.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I get the point, I just think it's a rather moot point. I don't see any reason to create to put something like this in the Constitution, especially if the only thing it could affect it is explicitly not affecting. It could conceivably prevent something in the future, but the chances of such a thing in the future happening seem pretty slim and marginal.
 
Heft:
Sydia:
Heft:
This seems like an entirely pointless proposal to address a complete non-issue. That said, since it doesn't actually do anything now, I suppose it's difficult to find grounds to oppose it (unless you count "not doing anything").
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. It's not what it does, it's what it prevents.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I get the point, I just think it's a rather moot point. I don't see any reason to create to put something like this in the Constitution, especially if the only thing it could affect it is explicitly not affecting. It could conceivably prevent something in the future, but the chances of such a thing in the future happening seem pretty slim and marginal.
Click to expand...
So are the chances of cabinet ministers going on a bender, but we've legislation to deal with that.
 
Sydia:
So are the chances of cabinet ministers going on a bender, but we've legislation to deal with that.
Click to expand...
Given our region's history with government officials, the chances of that seem a lot higher than the region randomly decided to tack on influence level requirements to positions.
 
Any Constitutional amendment with sufficient support to install Influence regulations on elected positions will also have sufficient support to remove this part of the Constitution, probably within the same resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top