[Proposal] Cabinet of Lazarus Amendment

[New Rogernomics]

(2) The Delegate may create additional ministries...via public announcement. The Delegate must declare a name and a set of responsibilities for any newly-created ministry. 

I believe the law should provide an informative description of how ministries are created. I don't know if what I wrote in grpurpleen is our intended process.

 I would agree, but it is not necessary to set it in stone constitutionally, especially when we already have existing public president of the Delegate always publicly announcing it, and an existing Act to cover public announcement of proposals.

According to the Assembly Procedures Act, all proposals must be publicly announced anyway, and have a minimum discussion period of three days.

An informative description of actual ministries, and how they would be established is proposed here in the Ministries of Lazarus Act:  https://www.nslazarus.com/thread-722.html

I would suggest looking there, for a discussion on how ministries should be implemented. 

(3) The Delegate may assign directives to the cabinet or any of its individual ministries. Common directives might include activities or programs whose implementation benefits Lazarus. Such directives may be amended by the Delegate  who issued them or a subsequent Delegate, and shall remain in effect unless rescinded by the Delegate who issued them or a subsequent Delegate.

(4) The responsibilities of ministries, mandated by law or otherwise, may not overlap. 

Without asserting what can be construed as "overlap," I don't think we benefit from blanketly codifying this into law.

Overlap would be in place for situations where the Assembly/Delegate creates a Ministry of War, then creates a Ministry of Defense at the same time, with exactly the same functions. It is necessary to read the Ministries of Lazarus Act proposal, to understand where this is important: https://www.nslazarus.com/thread-722.html

Essentially, Existing Ministries will be concerned something that a Delegate/Assembly can't just override without amending the Act. Without that in constitutional law, there would be a major conflict when we seek to establish an Act over how Ministries are run or established. 

Long term, hypothetically an Assembly or the Delegate could abuse the ability of creating Ministries to remove someone from a position, by creating a parallel Ministry. So this would easily patch up that loophole. 

This is probably the most flexible part of this proposal though, as we could do without it. 

(6) How deputies are decided

We need to decide how deputies are determined. Personally, I don't think we should elect deputies. That seems arduous for a region with our level of activity. 

The election of deputies already exists, as defined in the Assembly Procedures Act: https://www.nslazarus.com/thread-168.html

Section 3. Deputies to the Assembly Speaker

(1) The Assembly Speaker may appoint deputies to assist in presiding over the Assembly according to its procedural rules. Appointment of a deputy will be subject to confirmation by 50%+1 vote of the Assembly if the deputy-designate has previously been removed from office by the Assembly.

(2) Deputies to the Assembly Speaker will serve until resignation, removal from office by the Assembly or the Assembly Speaker, or automatic removal from office as defined by Mandate 12.

(3) Any powers or responsibilities assigned to the Assembly Speaker by these procedures, Mandate 12, or any other law, unless explicitly directed otherwise, may be delegated by the Assembly Speaker to their deputy or deputies, and rescinded by the Assembly Speaker. Deputies will not have the power to appoint or remove other deputies.

More Proposed Changes:

(6) Cabinet or Deputy Ministers may be removed through an election, in accordance with election procedure as defined by law.

What about recall votes?

How recall votes happen would be for an Elections Act. Cabinet or Deputy Ministers would be removed by how it is defined in that, which is the best way to go about it, as the region is at the very least leaning towards challenge elections or general elections. Generally if we follow from how other votes are established, a 50+1% vote would be the requirement to remove. 

I haven't proposed an Elections Act yet, as I couldn't legally pass it, as it would be in conflict with the existing constitution that doesn't allow for general elections or challenge elections.