Poll: Amendment to Security Council Constitutional Provisions

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
Security Council Provisions

I've posted this here in the constitution committee so that we may debate and analyze this along side the other constitutional amendments we are making. Also to move this general proposal away from some of the other comments in the other thread <.<

I have taken the wording from Gulliver's new constitution proposal's section on the Security Council. Highlighted in bold are the additions that I have brought over from the other thread.

Please vote on the poll, you can pick up to 3 choices, so if you like all sections please vote on all 3. if you like Section 1 and 3, vote for them only. etc

Also please feel free to suggest further amendments to the wording of this section.

Article 5. The Security Council:
1. The Security Council will be composed of trusted Regional Assembly members with at least Vassal Influence and who meet any requirements determined by law. The Regional Assembly may grant an exemption to these requirements by two-thirds majority vote.

2. Any Regional Assembly member who meets the requirements may apply to become a member of the Security Council

3. The Council may admit applicants by simple majority vote.All applicants proposed for admission to the Security Council must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Regional Assembly.

4. If an exemption is granted to a Security Council applicant, a confirmation vote is not required to confirm their appointment.

5. After an election for Delegate, the Regional Assembly will decide a line of succession beyond the Vice Delegate from among the members of the Security Council by a majority vote.

6. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members.

7. The Security Council will monitor the region's security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.

8. An election for Vice Delegate will be held if four months have passed since the most recent election or the office is vacant.

9. If the Delegate is removed or unable to serve, the Vice Delegate will assume duties of the Delegate. If the Vice Delegate is also unable to serve, the first available person on the line of succession will assume the duties of the Delegate.
Click to expand...
 
I think there's something wrong with your poll. I voted for options for sections 1 and 4. The option for section 1 didn't take. Unfortunately, I didn't check the poll results beforehand, so I don't know if the first option was ignored or misplaced.
 
Removing both the endorsement tally requirements and the trustworthiness requirements are dangerous; and this poll is inherently unfair in not allowing either or both options to be included as options for choices.
As it stands, we'd be better off as a region and for its security and safety to simply carry forward the current provisions than to adopt this proposal as it is written.
 
ADMIN NOTE: I've edited the poll so you can choose up to 3, since the OP noted that you should be able to choose up to three options.
 
I've been going back and forth between this proposal, the suggestions in the other thread, and the current constitution, and I just want to say... I have a headache.

I know it isn't part of the poll, but I believe some reference to endorsement requirements needs to be put back in.
 
Trustworthiness is still mentioned in that it says, "1. The Security Council will be composed of trusted Regional Assembly members".

As for endorsement requirements, we could change it to " any endorsement or other requirements determined by law"

This poll wasn't intended to be unfair. I assumed people wanting to retain the current wording would vote for "none of the above". The orginal poll idea I was going to make, had like 8 options which was a little over the top.

Also all wording besides the bold parts was authored by Gulliver as part of his new constitution proposal. It is good that we can iron this out now, so that the Security Council provisions don't risk slipping under the radar when the constitution comes to a vote.
 
Gulliver had posted in the one thread that since the FEC exemption had passed with 2/3rds, he was going to change his draft to include the current provisions on membership and exemptions.
Be that as it may, the problem still is using "trusted RA members" since some of the SC membership will not be RA members. It would be smarter if that were changed to "trusted residents" and make RA membership one of the requirements.
Then the exemption process should be clear that the RA could exempt a nation from any one or all of the requirements, or just certain of the requirements. (I'm not keen on exemptions as to the influence or endorsement requirements, because that would defeat one of the tools the SC is intended to use, the relatively high influence level of its membership as a defensive mechanism.
Using those four prongs as the template for SC membership was chosen after a lot of discussion among a number of then active residents in TNP and we had nothing anywhere else quite like it to base it on. That's why it took a couple of tries to sort it out so it would work.
 
I'm not overly keen on exemptions for influence or endorsement requirements either. One of the purposes of the poll was to see whether the right of the assembly to exempt members from such requirements is still wanted, if assembly members are satisfied with the RA's responsibility of confirming SC applicants.

Perhaps I had best edit in these proposed amendments with the current wording of the Security Council provisions then, like I had posted on the other thread.

I am open to suggestions on what exactly the wording should be changed to.

I will monitor the poll closely over the next few days.
 
I voted for none of the above. I disagree with Section 1's wording, trusted is subjective and would vary from person to person. So, while I am fine with RA exemptions for SC members, I am against influence/endorsements exemptions.

I don't like Section 3 because I personally feel that if the assembly is to vote on SC admissions, it should not be just a majority vote, I would personally prefer a 2/3 requirement.

I could tolerate Section 4, but with Section 3's current wording, I would be against it too.
 
Eluvatar:
Jamie: the RA can currently force the SC to accept a member by a 2/3 majority vote.
Click to expand...
I see. My point mostly stands however since my view on allowing the RA to vote on SC applications was already shown. To be honest, I'd rather amend the forcing section to a bigger majority, such as 3/4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top