11-17-2019, 02:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-17-2019, 03:13 PM by New Rogernomics.)
Quote: 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.
Quote:"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.