Declarations of War - legislation needed?

Post by **sedge** » 27 Sep 2011, 19:54

It's a situation that's unlikely to arise (hopefully), but possibly worth legislating for, so that it's clear that responsibility lies with the Assembly, not the Delegate.

If we decide to legislate on declarations of war, would it make more sense to fit it into the Constitution (which would make it hard to amend - a good thing), where it could be added as a clause in Article 3, or just as a stand-alone law?

Regarding majorities, I think we'd probably want a higher threshold - 75% to declare war on a region/organisation (since it's a major decision that'd impact on our security), but possibly a lower one (just a simple majority) to end a war.

I know that "wars" in NS are mostly pointless, but as a founderless region, they're more relevant to us, and even if we don't plan on declaring war on anyone (which I hope we don't), it at least gives a way of doing it, so we don't have a future delegate claiming they have the power to do so.

It's also worth noting that The New Inquisition (and possibly the Land of Kings and Emperors too, I can never remember) consider themselves at war with the FRA (and have done for years), which probably includes us too.

Post by **Guy** » 27 Sep 2011, 20:53

I think a Constitutional Amendment is the better option.

Christian Democrats · Post by **Christian Democrats** » 27 Sep 2011, 23:32

sedge wrote:
27 Sep 2011, 17:54
If we decide to legislate on declarations of war, would it make more sense to fit it into the Constitution (which would make it hard to amend - a good thing), where it could be added as a clause in Article 3, or just as a stand-alone law?

Regarding majorities, I think we'd probably want a higher threshold - 75% to declare war on a region/organisation (since it's a major decision that'd impact on our security), but possibly a lower one (just a simple majority) to end a war.

This region cannot declare war because it technically doesn't have a military, so this discussion is moot.* According to the Constitution, "The Rejected Realms Army (RRA) . . . operates independently of the government of TRR" (art. 1, sect. d).

Even if this Assembly had authority over the RRA, it would be unconstitutional to require by statute a threshold greater than a simple majority to declare war.

In my opinion, the Constitution should be amended to provide this Assembly some authority over the RRA (e.g., the Assembly could have the power to set broad policy goals).

Currently, war can be declared or ended only if the Assembly passes a constitutional amendment dictating such. The effective threshold for declaring war right now is 75 percent.

* American meaning of the word

Post by **sedge** » 28 Sep 2011, 00:04

Christian Democrats wrote:
27 Sep 2011, 21:32
In my opinion, the Constitution should be amended to provide this Assembly some authority over the RRA (e.g., the Assembly could have the power to set broad policy goals).

Nope. That discussion has been had before, it's not happening, because the government/Assembly and the RRA are separate entities. We're not revisiting that one.

Fair point about war being relatively meaningless without a military, but there's propaganda etc. I guess we could just amend the Constitution to say the region can't declare war.

Post by **Guy** » 28 Sep 2011, 01:28

If someone declares war on us, I'd like to be able to declare war back if beneficial.

Post by **Spartan Termopylae** » 28 Sep 2011, 01:41

Declaring war is a moot point if you cant back it up.

And is the Ameican meaning different to the English?

Christian Democrats · Post by **Christian Democrats** » 28 Sep 2011, 02:15

I think it's relevant to point out that the current government-military separation renders much of our alliance with Lazarus unconstitutional. We cannot fulfill our treaty obligations to that region because of the current government-military structure.

If someone declares war on us, I'd like to be able to declare war back if beneficial.

I think the Assembly should be able to direct the RRA in broad policy areas:

* Declarations of war

* Fulfillment of treaty obligations

A constitutional amendment altering the structure of the RRA and requiring a supermajority for declarations of war could be combined with Guy's proposal of raising the threshold for agreeing to treaties; hence, the Assembly could direct the RRA only by supermajority votes. Maybe RRA commanders could be given some sort of veto over treaties and laws that affect the RRA.

And is the Ameican meaning different to the English?

"Moot" means different things in North America and other Anglophone countries.

(Because this debate pertains to regional security and our inability to honor our treaty with Lazarus, I suggest it be moved to the citizens' private forum. I know Drop Your Pants still will be able to see it, but oh well.)

Post by **Spartan Termopylae** » 28 Sep 2011, 08:05

Have we moved into the realms of regional security?

CD, you are proposing things that Will Not Happen. We cannot legislate the RRA. Its been talked to death already. You were told so not long ago. Drop it

Post by **sedge** » 28 Sep 2011, 09:10

Not gonna repeat myself again. The Assembly cannot legislate for the RRA. Please, let's get back on topic.

CrazyGirl · Post by **CrazyGirl** » 28 Sep 2011, 09:15

The assembly doesn't OWN the RRA. It's its own entity, it's like thinking you get to say what way some dude down the street should furnish his house like. You don't get a say. Now back on topic.

A Draaaaaagon · Post by **A Draaaaaagon** » 28 Sep 2011, 09:24

Guy wrote:
27 Sep 2011, 23:28
If someone declares war on us, I'd like to be able to declare war back if beneficial.

Agreed.

Also, Please elaborate the benefits of this vis-a-vis TRR standing with founderless regions, should this even be a desired course of action.

Post by **Guy** » 28 Sep 2011, 10:06

There is just no point removing our ability to declare war. I would support an Amendment clarifying that its a matter for the Assembly, and imposing a supermajority.

If we're on the topic of treaty obligations, we can't technically fulfill our FRA obligations either. One solution to that would be the RRA agreeing to be a separate party to those treaties.

Post by **Whamabama** » 28 Sep 2011, 15:03

I don't think we even need the RRA to be in copliance with our treaty with them, nor for a declaration of war. There is enough of us in the assembly with experience in military gameplay who or either in the RRA or somewhere else. So we are capable of organizing troops outside the RRA if the need ever arises.

Post by **Guy** » 28 Sep 2011, 16:08

Right. So if an FRA member-region is attacked, citizens would need to defend it.

Now, I assume the raiders here would be granted an exemption. Then do we force the defenders and neutrals to defend? What if no one wants to? How could we fulfill our Charter obligations, then?

Post by **Whamabama** » 28 Sep 2011, 19:06

Well the realities of the game means we can't force anyone to defend, or go to war. That is just the realities of the game. We could punish them sure by removing their citizenship, but I don't think that is the route we should take.

Instead, we do ask the RRA to help, but with the realization that they can say no. We also organize an attept to gather as many willing citizens as possible for the attempt. Whether we get a sizable force or a small number of us, at least we are doing our best effort to aid our ally. I think as long as we do that, then we can say we are holding our end up, and I think the others will as well.

Christian Democrats · Post by **Christian Democrats** » 28 Sep 2011, 20:18

Maybe we, the Assembly, should consider establishing a paramilitary or reserve force of citizens that would be utilized only in certain instances . . . the Rejected Realms Militia?

It'd be comparable to the National Guard or State Defense Forces in the RL United States.

Post by **Guy** » 28 Sep 2011, 22:57

Wham, that is what we'd end up doing if an ally was attacked now. And while I don't mind that, I don't know whether our allies would consider it as sufficient.

Post by **sedge** » 28 Sep 2011, 23:45

I don't know the origins of the Lazarus treaty, other than that it was Kandarin only who signed it on our behalf originally, but FRA membership was something agreed upon by the RRA and Kandarin - so the likelihood is that they consider themselves bound by it too, and would therefore defender FRA member regions if necessary.

Post by **getters** » 29 Sep 2011, 03:43

in true i don't agree with CG on the RRA being independent of the TRR simple put
1)
dose the TRR gain it legitimacy form Kandrain being delegate and having pass the reigns of power to you lot?
2) if the answer to the first is true then the Delegate is still the commander in chief of the RRA

the RRA has all was been the Military arm of the TRR and all was will be for as long as any one clam the legitimacy of there role form Kadarin. Then your Basicly why because we the RRA put Kadrain there as his military in the first place all those years ago form Commander Gress (the founder of the RRA along side Graymarshl and a few others i was there butI was a grunt)

so yes the RRA is Part of the TRR as much as the TRR is a part of the RRA

this simple facts can not be ignore no matter how Much CG would like to

CrazyGirl · Post by **CrazyGirl** » 29 Sep 2011, 08:58

Not what I've heard, Getters. And you know better than to argue with your commander about RRA matters in public.

Post by **Spartan Termopylae** » 29 Sep 2011, 09:15

Kandarin no longer has anything to do with this region. Ive been here a while now, and he was gone long before that, so harking back to kandarin is pointless. But it also seems that the nature of the RRA has changed in your absence. Sp has the region. You have two choices. Get over it, or leave. The RRA is currently connected to TRR by name only. That will not change. TRR has its legitimacy because we exist in the manner we always have done. We are a democracy. As long as that remains true and true democratic process continues, our friends will still see us as legitimate. We dont have legitimacy because it was passed on, but because it was earned. And, I may be wrong, but TRR existed long before Kandarin. It will continue long after we're gone

A Draaaaaagon · Post by **A Draaaaaagon** » 29 Sep 2011, 10:45

Spartan Termopylae wrote:
29 Sep 2011, 07:15
Kandarin no longer has anything to do with this region. Ive been here a while now, and he was gone long before that, so harking back to kandarin is pointless. But it also seems that the nature of the RRA has changed in your absence. Sp has the region. You have two choices. Get over it, or leave. The RRA is currently connected to TRR by name only. That will not change. TRR has its legitimacy because we exist in the manner we always have done. We are a democracy. As long as that remains true and true democratic process continues, our friends will still see us as legitimate. We dont have legitimacy because it was passed on, but because it was earned. And, I may be wrong, but TRR existed long before Kandarin. It will continue long after we're gone

Perhaps in addition to our new mentorship program, we need to have a reorientation program for nations like Getters who clearly have been a part of TRR -- but indeed a lot has changed in one's extended absence.

Post by **getters** » 29 Sep 2011, 11:54

this is hardly public CG and if any one has ever disagree with the commanders it was me regularly in fact i speak my mine some time that cause clashs

don't mean i don't have huge amounts of respect for you our the work you put in
I don't doubt things have change nor do i agree that your legitimacy is sole form your democracy we put Kadrain there he hand over power you then built your constitution. Your democracy was born form the RRA actions and iam speaking past tense here.

yes the TRR was here before us but when you consider how old the Nation states game is and how old Kandrain and the RRA is your fine we not that far off. so for most of the NS life of the TRR the RRA and Kandrain have been here.

if CG and Sedge our Naivetry who took over form Kandrain wish to change it so be it. I was speaking pass tense and giving my Option on the delectation of war

Post by **Spartan Termopylae** » 29 Sep 2011, 13:43

Simply put, then, getters, the RR you knew does not exist any more. It evolved into todays form after the nation Kandarin was handed over to Nai. I was present for the end of that evolution. Rhings were as they are. TRR and RRA were seperate. As such, with no military, TRR cannot become engaged in war. TRR has no means to fight a war. How then can TRR declare war? The constitution stipulates the seperation between RRA and TRR. We the assembly have no power to make any demands of the RRA. Were we to declare war, the RRA could refuse to enter it. We cannot legislate the RRA to change this. Hence, TRR even becoming embroiled in a war is futile

Post by **Whamabama** » 29 Sep 2011, 13:54

Guy wrote:
28 Sep 2011, 20:57
Wham, that is what we'd end up doing if an ally was attacked now. And while I don't mind that, I don't know whether our allies would consider it as sufficient.

All we can hope for is that they do find it sufficient. While I am aware that the numbers we can pull could end up being few. If the seperation of the RRA and us were not present, the difference might only be in name. While the RRA is bigger now than when the assembly started. There is no guarentee that it will continue toget bigger, or even shrink.

If we try to honor our agreement, and put our best effort into the agreement. Then in my opinion we have honored our agreement, and if the other party dissagrees, it would dissapoint me, but I'm not sure what else we could do.