Change to Law 30

I propose that Section Two of Law 28 (The Security Council Regulation Act) be changed from:

Section Two: Enforcement

1. The Vice Delegate may suspend members of the Council who violate the endorsement and influence level requirements of this Act. Suspension takes places if, after a warning by the Vice Delegate, a Council member fails to come into compliance with the endorsement and influence level requirements within a reasonable amount of time specified in the warning, which is usually fifteen days.
2. The Vice Delegate may remove members of the Council whose World Assembly nation no longer exists or no longer resides in The North Pacific, resigns from the World Assembly (except as part of a formal redesignation of a resident World Assembly member nation within The North Pacific), or lose their membership (unless exempted) in the Regional Assembly.
3. The Vice Delegate shall report any suspension or removal of members of the Council to the Regional Assembly in accordance with Article V, Section 3 of the Constitution.
4. Should a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence level requirements of this Act, the Vice Delegate shall reinstate the Council member.
5. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a Council member poses a Security Risk to The North Pacific and shall submit such determination to the Regional Assembly for approval to remove that member from the Council. The Speaker shall submit the determination to an immediate vote of the Regional Assembly; approval shall require a two-thirds supermajority vote.

Click to expand...

To the following:

Section Two: Enforcement

1. The Vice Delegate may shall suspend members of the Council who violate the endorsement and influence level requirements of this Act. Suspension takes places if, after a warning by the Vice Delegate, a Council member fails to come into compliance with the endorsement and influence level requirements within a reasonable amount of time specified in the warning, which is usually fifteen days.
2. The Vice Delegate may shall remove members of the Council whose World Assembly nation no longer exists or no longer resides in The North Pacific, resigns from the World Assembly (except as part of a formal redesignation of a resident World Assembly member nation within The North Pacific), or lose their membership (unless exempted) in the Regional Assembly.
3. The Vice Delegate shall report any suspension or removal of members of the Council to the Regional Assembly in accordance with Article V, Section 3 of the Constitution.
4. Should a suspended member of the Council comes back into compliance with the endorsement and influence level requirements of this Act, the Vice Delegate shall reinstate the Council member.
5. A majority of the Council may vote to determine that the continued membership in the Council of a Council member poses a Security Risk to The North Pacific and shall submit such determination to the Regional Assembly for approval to remove that member from the Council. The Speaker shall submit the determination to an immediate vote of the Regional Assembly; approval shall require a two-thirds supermajority vote.

Click to expand...

I propose this change is twofold. First, section one of this law requires the Vice Delegate to act pursuant to the section in question but this section doesn't actually require them to do anything, so why require action at all? Second, the period of time you have to be in violation of the endorsement/influence requirements is 14 days. We've seen one can get up to the minimum number of endorsements very easily. If someone gets above the 85% mark they can easily drop and rejoin the WA and get back to the minimum endorsement level within the allotted time should they not seek to ask people to unendorse them.

Someone staying over 85% means one of two things, they're between the vice delegate and the delegate which causes an issue should something happen to the delegate or the vice delegate is very close to the delegate in endorsements which has been proven in the past to be troublesome should someone decide to mess with things.

I think this deckchair would be better on the port side of the Titanic, rather than the starboard side.

That being said, I am against. It makes our systems even more rigid and inflexible, if that is possible.

One of the things we learned while you were away, Limi, is that in order for thescheme to work where the Security Council is concerned relative to endo levels, the required level has to be a flexible range of endorsements received.
Things can't be controlled as precisely as you want. It's not possible, That's why we changed this law to have flexibility. The Vice Delegate, effectively, is chair of the Security Council, and as such, he or she will know what levels the SC members have to be at.
By logic, that means he knows he or she needs to have his endo level as least as high as all of the SC members, and second only to the Delegate. Having SC members, who these days often have a higher influence level than the elected Delegate, and having them with fairly high endo levels, means it would be almost impossible foe a rouge Delegate to eject or ban them. In addition, now that we starting to have the numbers on the SC we've wanted all along (we're at 5 elected members at this point), it would make such scenarios next to pointless. And since the SC members are to be nations who are greatly trusted within the regional community, the likelihood of coup d'etats become even lower.
In other words, I think we got this where we've wanted it and it now seems to be working the way it has always intended to work.
I admit that Limi's amendment is confusing because it seems he wants a technical amendment on the one hand, but his argument seems to be nothing related to the technical changes shown ("may" to "shall").
If he's intending some other change in the Law, he needs to be clearer about what language he is proposing to add, delete, or change, because, at this moment, I don't see it.

It seems intuitive that the change would require the Vice Del to enforce the limits, rather than allowing them to exercise their discretion. To be fair, I did not want the Vice Delegate to have any discretion when I originally drafted the security council law. I also wanted the Security Council to suggest changes to that law on a regular basis, and that didn't pan out XD

So... we reduce the VD to a mindless automaton who just pulls a lever when certain criteria are reached?

I can see the logic, if you look at our elected officials in a certain way. I bet you could train an orangutang to do much the same job.

This region's legislation is loaded with clauses like these that nobody will ever use unless they are forced to do so. Suggestions are fine in legislation if used sparingly, but if much of the legal code is made up of them then it is more a set of guidelines than a legal code. In TNP, few follow the guidelines. You might think that the system works when it is like this, Gross, but it doesn't. It hasn't. It won't. TNP has been used and abused countless times in the past because it is, collectively, a disorganized milquetoast.

The legislation in this region either needs to be destroyed and replaced with a much more straightforward and comprehensible document/system, or it needs to be given some balls. I agree with Limi's edits. If the edits are not made, the section he has highlighted might as well be struck and TNP's Security Council ought to stop feigning the appearance of being a democratic body.

We are in need of a serious overhaul even if it's just an interim move. The level of activity is catatonic.

First, the last few posts are seriously off topic for this thread.

Second, my primary issue with Limi's proposal is based on his explanation of it, as far as I can tell, the proposal only changes the same word twice, but his explanation implies he has a far broader amendment which I don't see written out.

There's a inconsistency there that Limi needs to clearly explain. Given the later posts in this thread, apparently I'm not the only one who sees his explanation as being far broader than the actual proposed amendment. Clear that impression up, and I might even be able to vote for it.

First, the last few posts are seriously off topic for this thread.

Click to expand...

No, actually, I think I made my post quite relevant to the subject at hand. TNP's legal code has no testicles because of weak clauses like this and we might as well give it a pair or give in to corruption by allowing everybody to be lenient with their friends and harsh with people they don't like. Yes, I went off on a tangent, but I tied it back to the topic at the end. Nice way to dodge responding to my opinions, though.

Yes I did originally draft it with no discretion explicitly for it to be equal to all

my point ( which i do not see as irrelevanant) is the opposite of AMOM's. the Flemingovian constitution has been criticised for creating a god for TNP. Well, we have already done that. We have elevated the constitution to the point of deity.

The delegate cannot do a sensible act becuase [hushed tones] it might upset the constitution [/hushed tones]. Now we want to take all human judgement out of the equation because the constitution must reign supreme.

Pur-lease. Give officials some judgement, or why have officials? Why not just have forum admins enforcing a set of rigid rules? Becuase that is the direction we are going in.

flemingovia:

my point ( which i do not see as irrelevanant) is the opposite of AMOM's. the Flemingovian constitution has been criticised for creating a god for TNP. Well, we have already done that. We have elevated the constitution to the point of deity.

The delegate cannot do a sensible act becuase [hushed tones] it might upset the constitution [/hushed tones]. Now we want to take all human judgement out of the equation because the constitution must reign supreme.

Pur-lease. Give officials some judgement, or why have officials? Why not just have forum admins enforcing a set of rigid rules? Becuase that is the direction we are going in.

Click to expand...

The bill itself only changes two words, and nothing in that has been changed, We might as well move that to formal discussion, and see if there is any further discussion on the actual bill.