Foreign Relations Clarification Act

[Dekks]

This act will be up for discussion until the 10th of April 2020, at which point it shall move to a vote.

Foreign Relations Clarification Act

Category: Charter Amendment

Author: Dekks

Co-sponsors: Liossalde, United Syndicates of Sol, Mauvemarke, DankAss Communes, Chromatica, The Gallo Republic

Chapter I: General Provisions

1. This act may be referred to as the Foreign Relations Clarification Act, or the FRC Act

2. This act will come into force upon its passage.

Chapter II: Foreign Relations Clarification Act

1. Crossed through parts shall be removed from, and parts in bold shall be added to 'Subsection 2.1.1 - Composition and Powers'

1. The Congress is the sole legislative body of the DSA. It is composed of all
Members of Congress.

2. The Congress may, by a simple majority of votes cast,


● Elect Members of Congress in good standing to the Cabinet and the Court
● Pass, repeal, and amend non-amendment legislative proposals
● Close embassies with other regions and withdraw from any other official relations with foreign regions or organizations.
● Impeach a Member of Congress if a ruling of the Court recommended their impeachment and the Court introduces the necessary motion
● Expel a Resident upon the recommendation of the Court
● Remove a Cabinet Member from office upon the recommendation of the Court
● Request a Court investigation of a Resident
● Overturn an Impeachment or Expulsion previously executed by the Congress
● Censure a Member of Congress
● Establish and amend rules and procedures for legislative and electoral
processes


3. The Congress may, by a 2/3 majority of votes cast,

● Amend the Charter
● Remove a Cabinet Member from office
● Ratify or withdraw from an inter-regional treaty or alliance
● Open embassies with other regions and ratify any other official relations with foreign regions or organizations
● Request Founder intervention
● Impeach a Member of Congress without the prior recommendation of the Court
● Expel a Resident without the recommendation of the Court
● Overturn an impeachment or expulsion performed by the Court

2. Crossed through parts shall be removed from, and parts in bold shall be added to 'Definitions - Administrative Priviliges'.

Administrative Privileges - Those privileges including but not limited to:

● Suppressing or editing Regional Message Board and Forum posts
● Altering the World Factbook Entry
● Altering the Forum structure and/or content as a staff member
● Ejecting and/or banning nations from the region
● Accepting, rejecting, and/or soliciting embassy requests
● Opening or closing embassies according to congressional votes
● Adding or removing regional tags
● Distributing region-wide mass telegrams
● Having access to the DSA Google Drive

[Deleted]

"2. This act will come into force upon it's passage." shall be changed to "2. This act will come into force upon its passage."

[devintheroaster]

I'm gonna have to rally pretty hard against this. The change to administrative privilege is not necessary and the change regarding Congress' abilities should simply cahnge 2.1.1.3, bullet 3 to say "Ratify or withdraw from an inter regional treaty, alliance or embassy" to reflect the law is it is now. This is pretty clearly a change to the law, not a clarification.

Changing information brings changing opinions. Now that the decision has been made by the High Judge, Mauvemarke, I feel that we should press on legislation. That said, I feel that Chapter 2, Part 2 should not be included as I feel this should remain Cabinet's right. Meanwhile, Part 1 should be consistent. Either a majority or super majority for both creating and breaking embassies. I personally feel is should be a super-majority but can tolerate a majority so long as it hold the consistency. 

[Deleted]

I agree with Wiley on the consistency, one of the embassy things should be shifted so both are simple or both are 2/3rds. Otherwise it's good, congress deserves this power. Gets tiring watching Cabinet make decisions that it feels like other people should have says in, like diplomacy.

[Mauvemarke]

Though I like the direction in which this bill is headed, personally I think there are some issues to be ironed out.

Giving the ability to open and close Embassies to both Congress and the Cabinet seems defunct. Rather I believe these should be combined with legislation that allows for Cabinet to take the perogative, albeit with the consent of Congress. I agree with the 2/3rds entry 1/2 leaving requirement however.

However, I believe treaties and other more substantial agreements should remain at a 2/3rds voting threshold. As I stated in my review, these such agreements require commitment that needs to be relied upon.

Thus I have changed my vote to abstain.