[Proposal] Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard Amendment

[McChimp]

The Delegate is the commander-and-chief. If the Delegate can't do their responsibility they shouldn't be Delegate. So that doesn't really stick. If they can't do adequate discretion, why would you argue that such an individual is good enough to be in any position, let alone a military one? The procedure for that is a removal vote. We had the same policy during the Humane Republic of Lazarus without issue, and that was when Lazarus had an active military under the Founderless Regions Alliance.

No it doesn't. It is clear that the only other things in the game you can do are raids and defenses, and as stated out previously requiring the assembly to do a vote for every defense or every raid makes for a slow process. It certainly doesn't mean to imply a Delegate can authorize to invade a region and take it over.

If someone is a truly inept Delegate that couldn't tell the difference between authorizing a raid, a defense, or a liberation, then they shouldn't be Delegate. This point doesn't really stand for the same reason as the first point, which is why would you advocate an inept Delegate be commander-and-chief of the military, and why would you rely on some act to define what an inept Delegate would fail to do under any circumstances?

There is evidently a change in the Delegate's responsibilities here-where before they were not responsible for authorising operations and therefore the region's alignment, now they are. By placing it at the discretion of one person, instead of at the discretion of the law, you are allowing Lazarus to be aligned as it was during the HRL, as the FRA was. Leaving it at the discretion of the Delegate doesn't guarantee a fair balance between raiding and defending.

I don't think that the Assembly should vote over every operation-that's patently absurd. What I am saying is that if it is your intention to make Lazarus independent, this is not the way to achieve that. I would actually prefer a law saying that Lazarus is aligned one way or the other than this, which allows any alignment. It just doesn't make sense for a region to be unstably aligned: it'll be bad for our interregional relations, it'll create unrest amongst our own community. This will lead to arguments and it will be a threat to the security of our region.

Voting to remove our Delegate because of their R/D alignment is exactly what we should be avoiding, not encouraging as this law does. That is exactly the kind of thing that will lead to a Delegate couping. I don't understand how you could even offer up "well you can always remove the Delegate if you don't like their stance on R/D" as an argument with a straight face.

The Assembly can amend the Guard Act at any time to define what operations it permits or not. This amendment is not for that, but allow for the Delegate to permit defenses and raid operations requested by the military. Which raises the second point, if the official/minister in charge of the guard proposes something the region doesn't like, they can again be removed.

Why are you writing this amendment without those more rigorous restrictions that you admit ought to be made? Is there some kind of urgency?