Re: General Layout of the United Warzone Republic, or at least what I'd like from it

[Chancellor Campbell II]

One idea might be to have monthly elections to choose a delegate to represent the whole republic. Or a cycle, starting with campbell, then apulita then arekyra etc

I believe that is more or less the idea of the PM's position. It seems a reasonable assumption that any active delegate would get a chance to be PM. A cycle between delegates for the PM could be an alternative, but the problem there is that you don't necessarily have a rotating cast if the delegate stays the same, and ensuring delegates follow regular succession procedures (or the lack thereof) is in the interests of regional security and culture.

I might also suggest that the appointment of PM or politburo members can be vetoed much in the same way that the UN's selection of Secretary General can be vetoed by any of the Security Council's permanent members.

Now here's a few cans of worms that probably need to be addressed:
Who will handle forum administration? I would reckon that forum administration doesn't need to feature a rotating cast or democratic elections. But how many do we need to administer an Interregional forum?

Also, the constitution promises citizens a fair trial, etc.; does said trial necessarily have to be the IWC, or are regional judicial systems capable of trying troublemakers for their respective regions provided all criteria are met? Building on this, if a regional security organization (i.e. local police), such as the one we discussed setting up in WZAI, find evidence to suggest a crime is being committed against said region, who, if anyone, needs to be contacted for action to take place?

[Llamas]

Ismailiyah, while I considered that idea earlier, I rejected it for three reasons:
1. It is completely undemocratic. In this scenario, the people who make up the PLA do not have the option of voting. This means that even if the majority of people want Person A who is in the Senate to be PM, People B, C, D, E, or F are going to end up in charge 5/6 of the time. Let me repeat that: over 83 percent of the time, the people's choice for the office of PM will be completely ignored. This is a best-case scenario; when you take into account the fact that the position of PM does not require that individuals be part of the Senate to be chosen, this means that the people's preference will be ignored significantly more than 83 percent of the time. This is, obviously, not fair to the vast majority.
2. It would fail to allow for flexibility in decision-making. If it is an individual delegate's turn to act as PM, there is nothing they can do or say about it to change this. Let's say there's a military crisis, and everybody thinks that there needs to be a military man put in charge to deal with the problem. However, the current delegate will probably not be the military man, it will be whoever's turn it is. Thus, even in a time of crisis, the region would not be able to change their delegate.
3. It would produce delegates who are competent as often as they're not. Because these delegates are going to be chosen by a random process, they're not going to be as good as one chosen by a vote in the PLA.

Finally, I'd also like to point out that although the constitution has the delegate be appointed by agreement between both the Senate and the PLA, thus striking a good compromise and allowing the individual WZ's to have input on this.

[Llamas]

I might also suggest that the appointment of PM or politburo members can be vetoed much in the same way that the UN's selection of Secretary General can be vetoed by any of the Security Council's permanent members.

That won't be necessary. The Senate and the PLA have equal power to select the PM and other Cabinet members, so that allows individual Warzones input on this. (PS: Cabinet. Politburo was when we wanted the commie theme for WZ Asia.)

Now here's a few cans of worms that probably need to be addressed:
Who will handle forum administration? I would reckon that forum administration doesn't need to feature a rotating cast or democratic elections. But how many do we need to administer an Interregional forum?

The Interregional forum will be administered by the proper executive officials in the Cabinet, who will be appointed by concurrence of the majority of the Senate and PLA. We'll create a position for it similar to that of "First Tiger" for the PRL.

Also, the constitution promises citizens a fair trial, etc.; does said trial necessarily have to be the IWC, or are regional judicial systems capable of trying troublemakers for their respective regions provided all criteria are met?

Regional judicial systems will be allowed to handle crimes, and I'll add a section clarifying that. Thanks.

Building on this, if a regional security organization (i.e. local police), such as the one we discussed setting up in WZAI, find evidence to suggest a crime is being committed against said region, who, if anyone, needs to be contacted for action to take place?

Not quite sure what you mean. The Courts would need to be contacted for criminals to be prosecuted, if that's what you mean.

[Llamas]

Changed the name of the PLA to ULA. (Unified Legislative Assembly) PLA sounded too commie.

[Arekrya]

Agreed

[Llamas]

I'd like to see how many of you currently support the constitution, so I'll be holding a vote just to see this. Vote Aye or Nay. I vote Aye.
Ayes: 1
Nays: 0

[Crisisies]

Aye

[Llamas]

Ayes: 2
Nay: 0

[Frederick William II]

Wholeheartedly NAY. It is too vaguely written, and I am staunchly against how powerful the centralized government would be.

[Llamas]

Ayes: 2 (WZAF 1, WZAI 1)
Nay: 1

What exactly is it that you find vague about the constitution?

[Crisisies]

I'm sorry but if it's much more complex, I'd find it confusing. It's short yes but it tells you everything you need to know. If something comes up that it does not cover, it should be up to that specific warzone's governor to decide.

[Velkon]

Aye.

[Llamas]

Aye: 4
Nay: 1

Crisisies is partially right; if something's not covered in the constitution, the IWR gets to make a decision, just like the Supreme Court clears up misunderstandings in the US Constitution. In addition, all Constituent Regions can create any law whatsoever that does not interfere with a law of the UWR, and all Constituent Regions have the right to their own sovereignty. Should an individual region think that the UWR is encroaching upon its authority, they can bring their argument before the IWC and argue that this or that is unconstitutional because it infringes too much on the Warzone's right to sovereignty.

Everybody remember to read the whole constitution, BTW, which is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UtYOGPHqFYue0eqHFNEN-C5rQ67DvN-cb-mT5C3T6hE/edit Check it every once in a while, as I may edit or make minor changes to it over time. Last update was sometime this morning. (Morning for me, here in California.)

[Arekrya]

Aye

[Llamas]

Aye: 5
Nay: 1

The current constitution appears to have overwhelming support. I think we should start bringing them before our individual governments for ratification. However, I have one question: Does anybody have any names that could serve as an alternative to UWR? It needs to be four letters.

[Apulita]

Nay to the constitution as it stands.

I strongly disagree with the Chief Justice, head of the Judicial, holding a life term. The position as head of the judicial branch of government is a strong one and should not be so cemented to give one person power.

Secondly, I note that a citizen can be expelled from the UWR by it's legislative. Can individual regions expel their citizens or is that now illegal? Secondly, I note that three fifths majority is needed. Doesn't this mean that technically, a warzone could NOT want their member kicked out, but have them expelled by the ULA regardless? What happens when a citizen is expelled, is the region holding them forced to eject them?

[Crisisies]

Warzone Airspace is now in the process of ratifying the Constitution.

[Chancellor Campbell II]

Nay to the constitution as it stands.

I strongly disagree with the Chief Justice, head of the Judicial, holding a life term. The position as head of the judicial branch of government is a strong one and should not be so cemented to give one person power.

I can see this as a potential concern, yet at the same time, I would think that you would want the judicial branch to be relatively isolated from regular politics and election campaigns, partly because it would make the courts more efficient, and partly because it would help guard against purely populist rulings that potentially jeopardize regional security or what have you. I could rally behind a term limit, but I would want to make it suitably long to ensure the justices focus primarily on Justice and not popularity. Just to toss out a number, I would recommend somewhere in the range of 3-6 months.

Secondly, I note that a citizen can be expelled from the UWR by it's legislative. Can individual regions expel their citizens or is that now illegal? Secondly, I note that three fifths majority is needed. Doesn't this mean that technically, a warzone could NOT want their member kicked out, but have them expelled by the ULA regardless? What happens when a citizen is expelled, is the region holding them forced to eject them?

My understanding is that regional judicial systems can do as they please, provided it does not directly contradict the constitution (and are given a fair trial). I don't think a citizen could be ejected without the consent of their current residence, however they would be unable to run for office in the UWR and they would forfeit constitutional protection (i.e. They could be optionally declared eject-on-sight from other regions without a trial).
It should be added that regional residents aren't automatically citizens of the UWR, they have to apply, and in my experience, most don't. Raiders certainly wouldn't. So those who do not apply for UWR republic are left to the delegate/regional government to deal with as they see fit.
I might suggest an addendum that espionage, subversion, or any crimes that directly threaten the stability of a constituent region are punishable by the acting delegate without consulting the IJC, citizen or not. I think this would help ensure individual regions have the capability to act swiftly against troublemakers (a la Free Zone infiltrators).

For the record, I am abstaining until those voting nay get a chance to discuss concerns. I am naturally skeptical of any work that moves through drafting and is approved so quickly, but thus far I like the general look of it.

[Llamas]

I strongly disagree with the Chief Justice, head of the Judicial, holding a life term. The position as head of the judicial branch of government is a strong one and should not be so cemented to give one person power.

You sort of misunderstood. He serves a "Life" term, but he can be impeached by a 3/5 majority vote in the PLA. The reason why judges don't have to run for reelection is that if they did, then they would probably have to start making decisions based on what they thought was popular and would get them reelected, not what is correct. Most countries, i.e. Canada, have their judges in the Supreme Court or equivalent go for life terms, with the possibility of impeachment and a forced retirement date, when they're old and their mental faculties have probably been significantly reduced.

However, if you'd like, I would be willing to compromise on this. We'll allow the Chief Justice of the UWR to be appointed for half a year, which is pretty long but not forever, and they won't be allowed to run for reelection. This way, judges will still be picked on the basis of merit and not popularity of opinions because the judges won't have shown their opinions in cases yet.

Secondly, I note that a citizen can be expelled from the UWR by it's legislative. Can individual regions expel their citizens or is that now illegal? Secondly, I note that three fifths majority is needed. Doesn't this mean that technically, a Warzone could NOT want their member kicked out, but have them expelled by the ULA regardless? What happens when a citizen is expelled, is the region holding them forced to eject them?

Aah, good questions. Being stripped of your citizenship, firstly, is meant only as a punishment for really bad crimes, such as spying for a foreign power. But to clear up your question, it does not mean that a Constituent Region will be forced to ban one of its own citizens when it does not want to do so. Individual Constituent Regions are also still allowed to ban anyone they want, so long as it is done as a punishment for a crime.

[Llamas]

Warzone Airspace is now in the process of ratifying the Constitution.  

Hold off on that, actually, we need Apulita's blessing as delegate of WZ Europe.

[Llamas]

I might suggest an addendum that espionage, subversion, or any crimes that directly threaten the stability of a constituent region are punishable by the acting delegate without consulting the IJC IWC, citizen or not. I think this would help ensure individual regions have the capability to act swiftly against troublemakers (a la Free Zone infiltrators).

1. FTFY. You're confuzzling the PJC, People's Judicial Court, from Asia with the UWR's Interregional Judicial Court.
2. Forgot about that, I'll add a clarification to Article IV, Section 4.

[Llamas]

Do any delegates present have any objections to the constitution as it currently stands?

[Crisisies]

No.

[Arekrya]

No

[Frederick William II]

My biggest concern is how much power the Prime Minister has.  I can easily foresee a Prime Minister fabricating a threat (such as convincing another region to use the threat of invasion or war), and then using that threat to pass whatever legislation he wants under the pretense that it's necessary for security reasons, and due to those circumstances this "necessary" legislation would have an easier time of getting through the ULA and Senate without being repealed.  To have all seven Warzones be open to such facile manipulation by one person seems preposterous to me.

In my opinion, it would be better to divide the responsibilities of the Prime Minister amongst the Delegates, have the job be done by a council of the Delegates, and have the Delegates also assume the various responsibilities of the Cabinet. They would just divy up the Cabinet positions, and stagger elections to avoid having completely new leadership after each election.

I find it especially disconcerting that there is no specific method of selecting the Prime Minister delineated in the constitution.  Potentially, the Prime Minister could be selected without involving the common citizens of the Warzones.  With a council of the Delegates in charge of the entire UWR, there is much less chance for abuse of power, and the people in charge are much more accessible and visible to the inhabitants of the Warzones.

My other big concern applies only to Warzone Europe, though it affects the outcome of this convention. How are we (Warzone Europeans) supposed to legally ratify this constitution, or be a part of a body whose laws supersede our own, when we are part of the Astarialn Empire? After all, we had a lot of difficulty attaining the assent of the Empress for our own regional constitution because of confusion over the role of the Crown. What do you think the odds are that she'll assent to just giving up Warzone Europe? Either the laws of the UWR cannot supersede the Warzones' (or at least Warzone Europe's), or Warzone Europe must leave the Astarialn Empire. I think the latter is extremely unwise and highly disrespectful of the several times the Empress has not only protected our region from invasion but also allowed us to free up troops to defend the other Warzones.

[Sponsored content]