[Proposal] Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard Amendment

[New Rogernomics]

[align=center]Preamble

This amendment will declare the operational guard commander a government official and not a minister, and allow for the Delegate to give more operational flexibility to the guard if they so authorize.

Section 1. Amendment of Section 1

(1) Section 1 shall be amended to read:

citizen to serve as operational commander of the Regional Guard . Operational command authority may be further delegated to a chain of command subordinate to the operational commander.

(3) The command, conduct, and membership criteria of the Regional Guard may be further regulated by law or by executive policy.

Section 2. Amendment of Section 2

(1) Section 2 shall be amended to read:

(1) The regional military alignment of Lazarus will be neutral. Lazarus will bear the Neutral tag at all times.

(2) Lazarus may not bear any of the following tags: Defender, Imperialist, Independent, or Invader.

(3) The Regional Guard may engage in the following types of operations without prior approval of the Delegate:

a. Defense of Lazarus;
b. Defense of Lazarus' treaty allies, if mandated by treaty terms;
c. Invasion of regions upon which Lazarus has declared war, and defense of other regions against their military forces;
d. Defense of other Feeders and Sinkers at the request of their legitimate governments;
e. Assistance in other regions' legal Delegate transitions at the request of their legitimate governments;
f. Offensive or defensive training operations in game-created Warzone regions;
g. Invasion of fascist regions and defense of regions against fascist military forces;
h. Invasion of regions which pose a substantial threat to the out-of-character security or safety of NationStates players, and defense of regions against forces which pose such a threat.

(4) The Assembly may enact a resolution empowering the Regional Guard to invade a region that is the ally or protectorate of a region upon which Lazarus has declared war. Such a resolution may be approved or rescinded by two-thirds vote of the Assembly.

(5) The Regional Guard may be empowered to engage in other military operations upon the approval of the Delegate so long as:

a. Operations do not involve regions exceeding 20 nations,
b. Operations do not exceed 72 hours in duration,
c. The RMB, WFE and embassies of a region are restored at the end of an operation.

This starts the discussion on the current text above.

Changed parts from the current Guard Charter are highlighted in green

 

[McChimp]

This draft still has two big problems, even if you disregard the issues with its intent:


It does not specify the threshold required for the operational commander to be confirmed or even that the commander needs to be confirmed, nor is there a standard provision for it to reference.

"Short of an act of war" is too vague, failing to draw a line in the sand and leaving the bill subject to extreme interpretation when it comes to the limit of operations the Delegate can authorise independently of anybody else.

 

[New Rogernomics]

It does not specify the threshold required for the operational commander to be confirmed or even that the commander needs to be confirmed, nor is there a standard provision for it to reference.

It is a two thirds majority for removal, and 50%+1 as defined in the constitution for a goverment official. It is not required to reference an already defined number. Nor does the existing Charter do so. It only refers to Minister. So this is not an issue with this amendment but the Charter that already exists.

Since you find it an issue I've edited above to specifically reference it, though this is realistically not required.

"Short of an act of war" is too vague, failing to draw a line in the sand and leaving the bill subject to extreme interpretation when it comes to the limit of operations the Delegate can authorise independently of anybody else.

If this is your issue, then as I've grasped from Roavin, others, and my own points on the issue. If you can't trust and rely on your own Delegate and Operational Commander, you'll have far worse problems in existence than any potentially from this amendment. Operational authority being the approval responsibility of the Head of State (and Presidential equivalent) is not as reckless as you believe but common procedure.

The Operational Commander will put operations to the Delegate, and provide their assessment of whether they should go ahead, and the Delegate can effectively veto any operation not already allowed, if they are not satisfied.

Under the parliamentary system, the Prime Minister as Head of Government would also hold their own operational veto in addition to the Head of State. Though under the UK monarchy for instance this veto stems from the approval authority of the Queen being given by the Queen to her Prime Minister, which she still keeps.

 

[McChimp]

It is a two thirds majority as defined in the constitution for a goverment official. It is not required to reference an already defined number. Nor does the existing Charter do so. It only refers to Minister. So this is not an issue with this amendment but the Charter that already exists.

The Mandate states that the Assembly may remove any government official established by law by two-thirds vote. It says nothing about confirming them. The Charter did not need to specify a threshold before now because it mandated that the Delegate appoint a Cabinet Minister, for which there are provisions in the mandate. Since the commander is not a Cabinet Minister any more, a provision needs to be included in this amendment.

If this is your issue, then as I've grasped from Roavin, others, and my own points on the issue. If you can't trust and rely on your own Delegate and Operational Commander, you'll have far worse problems in existence than any potentially from this amendment. Operational authority being the approval responsibility of the Head of State (and Presidential equivalent) is not reckless as you believe but common procedure.

The Operational Commander will put operations to the Delegate, and provide their assessment of whether they should go ahead, and the Delegate can effectively veto any operation not already allowed, if they are not satisfied.

Under the parliamentary system, the Prime Minister as Head of Government would also hold their own operational veto in addition to the Head of State. Though under the UK monarchy for instance this veto stems from the approval authority of the Queen being given by the Queen to her Prime Minister, which she still keeps.

The Delegate's obedience to the law is an objective measure of their goodwill. The law and the law alone defines what the Delegate can and cannot do legally. Your hopes that the Delegate will not use the full powers you have inadvertetently given the office here mean nothing in the face of the fact that the law you have written permits them to do exactly that.

Perhaps more importantly, the vagueness of this provision gives any subversive in Lazarus cause to harass the Delegate, since they can claim that the Delegate has permitted an act of war even if, as you suppose it, it wasn't.

 

[Deleted1]

Full support for this.

 

[Zapatian Workers State]

I support it.

 

[New Rogernomics]

This is ready for a vote then.

 

[Deleted1]

I second.