[Proposal] Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard Amendment

[New Rogernomics]

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.

Actually they are as the commander-and-chief is responsible for the conduct of their minister. If they are authorizing operations that create a regional alignment, then we must hold the Delegate AND the minister/official responsible.

It is not at the discretion of one person, any more than it is the discretion of one person, if a Head of State, such as a Queen, or a President, is the commander-and-chief of the military, as there is a clear chain of command that follows from the commander-and-chief, through to subordinates, which in turn are all directly responsible for their conduct to the legislature and the citizenry.

There is no such thing as an achievable balance between "raiding" and defending", and nor can you argue that invading other regions and being at war, as is currently justified by acts (or has been in the past), is a fair balance - as in itself war is not a balance but the goal with aim of seizing the sovereign territory of another region. If you have any military of any kind at all, you will make other regions not like you. That seems more of an argument against the existence of a military than an argument against this amendment.

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.

Making Lazarus independent or not is not the declared purpose of this amendment, nor does it stand the hope of making unrest to allow the commander-and-chief of the military to allow raids and defenses requested by the military, and NOT by the Delegate. Unless you are seriously suggesting TNP is descending into civil war because they allow the commander-and-chief to decide. Nowhere does this permit the Delegate to suggest an operation, as it must be suggested first by their operational commander, an operational commander that is directly responsible to the region for their conduct.

Voting to remove our Delegate because of their R/D alignment is exactly what we should be avoiding, not encouraging as this law does.

How? This amendment does not permit R/D as a policy. It permits the operational commander to request an operation that MAY be a defense or MAY be a raid, it does not justify whether a raid or a defense is moral or not, or even if one should take place, and it does NOT permit the Delegate to propose an operation. It does not mention "raid" or "defense" at all either, as those are just some options permitted by allowing the military to propose operations to the Delegate, and not the only options. 

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 military deciding upon an operation and presenting it to the Delegate for approval, can hardly make a Delegate into a power-hungry idiot that wants to coup the region. They have to be that well before, and since you bring up "couping", I hardly think saying in an act "you can R/D" will prevent the Delegate couping. They'll do that anyway. It certainly didn't stop anyone who couped Lazarus multiple times. So my original point still stands, if you appoint/elect an incompetent military commander, then that is on region  - and not on this proposed amendment. 

I don't understand why you are so determined to refute the position that the commander-and-chief of the military and the operational commander is ultimately responsible to their region, and that the ultimate sanction is to remove them from their position. It is also incorrect to suggest that I implied at any point that is the only sanction, as that includes the court and public opposition encouraging the Delegate to change their mind. 

This never states "raid" or "defense" in the whole amendment, and certainly doesn't advocate for either.

Finally, it is not in the spirit of this amendment to allow the Delegate to set R/D policy, and in my opinion to do so would require another amendment that details regional positions on R/D and not just allowing the operational commander to propose an operation to the Delegate, and frankly I don't think anyone is ready to declare Lazarus exclusively "raider" or "defender" at this time.