New Rogernomics;7557 Wrote:It is a two thirds majority 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.
The Mandate states that the Assembly may remove any government official established by law by two-thirds vote. It says nothing about confirming them. The Charter did not need to specify a threshold before now because it mandated that the Delegate appoint a Cabinet Minister, for which there are provisions in the mandate. Since the commander is not a Cabinet Minister any more, a provision needs to be included in this amendment.
Quote: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 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.
The Delegate's obedience to the law is an objective measure of their goodwill. The law and the law alone defines what the Delegate can and cannot do legally. Your hopes that the Delegate will not use the full powers you have inadvertetently given the office here mean nothing in the face of the fact that the law you have written permits them to do exactly that.
Perhaps more importantly, the vagueness of this provision gives any subversive in Lazarus cause to harass the Delegate, since they can claim that the Delegate has permitted an act of war even if, as you suppose it, it wasn't.