Welcome to Lazarus

Please register to view all features
Register

Lazarene forum

Introduce yourself and learn about the forum here

Permanent Unalignment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ryccia

Ryccia

Lazarene (15%)
Verified
Became a Citizen Citizen 6 Months Citizen 12 Months
Joined
Jun 13, 2018
Messages
452
Feather
ƒ1,931
For the Charter of the Guard:
The alignment of the Lazarene Regional Guard cannot be altered without a total and unanimous vote by the Assembly. This sub-section of this document cannot be amended without a total and unanimous vote by the Assembly. Such a total and unanimous vote requires unanimous consent from the Assembly. Abstaining votes in such a total and unanimous vote to amend this sub-section shall be counted as "Nay". No other sub-section or section in this document can contradict this one.
...
Click to expand...

For the Twelfth Mandate:
...
X. Regarding the Region's Military Alignment

(1) Lazarus shall have no official military alignment or ideology of any kind, and thus shall remain neutral. The alignment of the Lazarene Regional Guard or of Lazarus proper cannot be altered without a total and unanimous vote by the Assembly. This sub-section of this document cannot be amended without a total and unanimous vote by the Assembly. Such a total and unanimous vote requires unanimous consent from the Assembly. Abstaining votes in such a total and unanimous vote to amend this sub-section shall be counted as "Nay". No other sub-section or section in this document can contradict this one.
Click to expand...

This is an idea to be debated. I see Permanent Neutrality as a way to keep the military and the region safe from the chaos and discord caused by prior conflicts over R/D whilst giving the Guard the ability to do as it wishes.
 
May I ask for a reasoning for the vote against? Saying "opposed" is hardly constructive criticism. It's fine to be opposed to the idea entirely, of course, but a reasoning would perhaps be appreciated.

I'm neither supportive or opposed for the moment. I wholeheartedly support the idea of being able to do what we think is in our best interests, though.
 
The proposal is unconstitutional; by dictating the majority by which it may be amended, it contradicts the mandate.

In addition to this, the proposal exchanges de facto neutrality for de jure neutrality. A law saying that the region is unaligned is no use if it offers no practical means to enforce that. As has been discussed before, the only such way to enforce neutrality is the measure that the amendment strikes out.
 
It's dumb. Amendments that include things that will change voting thresholds to a unanimous vote should require a unanimous vote. And that's clearly not going to happen, that's just one reason I'm opposed.
 
There is no motion to table in the Assembly Procedures Act, though either the Speaker or myself can table if asked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top