IDS 2: South East Militia Dissolution Act (Failed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:09:30 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  IDS 2: South East Militia Dissolution Act (Failed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: IDS 2: South East Militia Dissolution Act (Failed)  (Read 1022 times)
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 25, 2013, 02:24:42 PM »
« edited: August 16, 2013, 03:55:13 PM by Speaker Dereich »

The South East Militia Dissolution Act

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Velasco
Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2013, 02:36:48 PM »

How do the other regions organise their 'Militia' or 'National Guard'? I imagine the IDS is unique in its approach. If someone would care to enlighten me?
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2013, 04:46:44 PM »

First of all, before going into discussion, the text of the bill, as it's worded, was a reaction to the to the overacted response from some legislators in this House before the events that took place in the Pacific region. The notion of an informal and likely unconstitutional regional militia invading unilaterally the Pacific's territory seemed to me outrageous. Also, by that time I noticed the terrible legal confusion behind our old South East Militia Act of 2005, which established a bunch of paramilitary militias created with the vague purpose of 'self-defense'. My intention is to rebuild the text of my bill, but the spirit will be the same: we need to create an only National Guard for the South, getting rid of the rest of the informal militia corps and clarifying its functions which, in my opinion, should be:

1) A reserve for the Atlasian Armed Forces.

2) A force capable of defending the southerners from real dangers like fires, floods and similar catastrophes. That's why I think we must to we must turn this armed force in a useful tool for the citizenry, entrusting our National Guard tasks of Civil Protection with the suitable training.

If you have thoughts on the subject of the bill, go ahead. In other case I will rewrite it with the aim of fulfilling the purposes expressed above.
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2013, 06:46:43 PM »
« Edited: July 29, 2013, 01:10:00 AM by Velasco »

Proposed amendments or rewriting of the original text.

The South National Guard Act

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2013, 02:04:28 PM »

The South already has a National Guard as is.

I'm not really convinced of the need to abolish the other militia groups either. There have been no incidents (bar the Pacific insurrection) regarding the militias since the prior bills passage in 2005, if someone can point evidence otherwise, I'd be happy to look at it. Either way, this feels like change for the sake of change, which nine times out of ten, isn't a good idea.

Though, I will consider voting in favour of a bill which maintains the current National Guard and militia forces alongside Section 2.4a and below.
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2013, 03:21:47 PM »
« Edited: July 28, 2013, 03:37:33 PM by Velasco »

The South already has a National Guard as is.

I'm not really convinced of the need to abolish the other militia groups either. There have been no incidents (bar the Pacific insurrection) regarding the militias since the prior bills passage in 2005, if someone can point evidence otherwise, I'd be happy to look at it. Either way, this feels like change for the sake of change, which nine times out of ten, isn't a good idea.

You should take a look into this:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=176375.0

Informal militias and the whole bunch of military forces created under the South East Militia Act of 2005 are likely unconstitutional. The aim is clarifying the functions of the new National Guard, reducing the military functions to constitute a reserve of the Atlasian armed forces -which incidentally might be at the disposal of the President and the Atlasian government- and giving the new National Guard some social utility creating a special unit for emergencies. As for the last point, the coordination of the regional emergency plan passes from 'military' to regional government's hands. The change of nomenclature is symbolic, but there are major changes with regard to the 2005 act, though I tried to preserve some parts or making changes as smooth and subtle as possible. I believe it's imperative to dissolve unnecessary, redundant and paralegal military forces. I'm open to suggestions to improve the bill, but obviously against the preservation of the four types of militia.
Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2013, 04:33:52 PM »
« Edited: July 28, 2013, 04:37:26 PM by Supersonic »

The South already has a National Guard as is.

I'm not really convinced of the need to abolish the other militia groups either. There have been no incidents (bar the Pacific insurrection) regarding the militias since the prior bills passage in 2005, if someone can point evidence otherwise, I'd be happy to look at it. Either way, this feels like change for the sake of change, which nine times out of ten, isn't a good idea.

You should take a look into this:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=176375.0

Informal militias and the whole bunch of military forces created under the South East Militia Act of 2005 are likely unconstitutional. The aim is clarifying the functions of the new National Guard, reducing the military functions to constitute a reserve of the Atlasian armed forces -which incidentally might be at the disposal of the President and the Atlasian government- and giving the new National Guard some social utility creating a special unit for emergencies. As for the last point, the coordination of the regional emergency plan passes from 'military' to regional government's hands. The change of nomenclature is symbolic, but there are major changes with regard to the 2005 act, though I tried to preserve some parts or making changes as smooth and subtle as possible. I believe it's imperative to dissolve unnecessary, redundant and paralegal military forces. I'm open to suggestions to improve the bill, but obviously against the preservation of the four types of militia.

On the question of constitutionality, surely the Supreme Court would have ruled against the old militia bill if it's unconstitutional. Matters of judicial interpretation are for the courts, not the Imperial Legislature. Pedantic as that sounds.

Of course, I'll withhold judgement on this bill until others have said their peace.

On the whole however, I am in favour of 'tidying up' old IDS legislation.
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2013, 05:45:48 PM »

Another reason to turn the current state of our militias into something more rationale is the terrible mess of having so many different militia corps. It's really hard to me trying to make the distinction between the "National Guard" the "South East Region Guard" and the "State Guard". I put "South East National Guard" instead of "Regional" in clause 2.2. It's fixed, otherwise the rest is unchanged.

Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2013, 01:04:42 AM »

Clause 1.4 is changed to include the IDS Militia Structure Act.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/IDS_Militia_Structure_Act
Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2013, 11:40:35 AM »

Noticing that the Supreme Court is already pondering issues of constitutionality regarding the other militia forces of the IDS. Might I consider that the legislature hold off on abolishing the other militia groups until the court rules? I, personally, would be in favour of passing a bill clarifying the role of the South National Guard with the Civil Protection clauses of Section 3 in addition to the 'Adjutant General' clauses of 2.4 and below.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2013, 12:30:10 PM »

The individuality of the different Militias is as much a positive as it is a negative. For one, Militias of a smaller area will better know that area and be able to provide assistance. The more decentralized system is a big plus in a region such as ours which values individuality and states rights over centralized operation. Also, this is not the place to discuss constitutionality. We have no right to decide what is and isn't constitutional. At this point I see no reason to move away from the Milita.
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2013, 03:48:56 PM »

Notice that I said "likely" unconstitutional.

The individuality of the different Militias is as much a positive as it is a negative. For one, Militias of a smaller area will better know that area and be able to provide assistance. The more decentralized system is a big plus in a region such as ours which values individuality and states rights over centralized operation.

I'm all for decentralization of civil brigades. May I suggest that we should legislate on creating Civil Protection units made of unarmed citizens instead of militiamen alongside to develop a Region Emergency Plan coordinated by civil authorities? The Special Unit that I'm proposing is of different nature. It would be a highly specialized unit ready to intervene quickly across the region. Necessarily it should be a relatively small and compact unit with a central base of operations.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2013, 09:01:33 PM »

No, it's been handled. Thanks though.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2013, 02:35:29 PM »


What are you trying to say here?
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2013, 07:37:22 AM »


That was a PM to Dibble. Not sure how it ended up here.

Anyways, I'd prefer to hold off on this legislation, if it's possible, until the Court rules on it. If the Court says it's alright to keep it, then I don't want to get rid of it, and if they say we have to dump it then we'll just pass something like this.
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2013, 10:22:03 AM »


That was a PM to Dibble. Not sure how it ended up here.

Anyways, I'd prefer to hold off on this legislation, if it's possible, until the Court rules on it. If the Court says it's alright to keep it, then I don't want to get rid of it, and if they say we have to dump it then we'll just pass something like this.

I'm opposed on handling off this bill. I think the topic has enough importance to be debated here and now, with independence of the Court's saying. I didn't make the effort of trying a comprehensive reform of the militias in order to be relegated and hidden in a drawer.
Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2013, 12:31:28 PM »

I too am opposed to the relegation of this bill to some legislative backdrawer, and feel it should continue to be debated. However, I do feel we should wait for the Supreme Court's verdict before voting wholesale on the bill for two reasons. Firstly, some legislators, namely myself, will base their vote on the ruling of the Court and secondly, some extra judicial information on militias could help us to improve this bill.
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2013, 03:03:42 PM »

Well, I'm not going to run for re election. Hopefully I will be replaced by Zanas, but I don't have a clue about his thoughts on this subject. I'd like to discuss on issues like: have this region the right to act unilaterally in events like the Pacific crisis or the proposed invasion of Coahuila and Tamaulipas? Why do we need so different types of militia? What's the reason to maintain regional laws where such militias are described as "paramilitary" forces? Why don't we have a regional emergency plan coordinated by civil authorities instead of by a commander of a paramilitary unit? I have a bunch of questions like these. It's just for fun, as our speaker says in his campaign's opening speech.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2013, 03:32:58 PM »
« Edited: July 31, 2013, 03:37:14 PM by Speaker Dereich »

Well, I'm not going to run for re election. Hopefully I will be replaced by Zanas, but I don't have a clue about his thoughts on this subject. I'd like to discuss on issues like: have this region the right to act unilaterally in events like the Pacific crisis or the proposed invasion of Coahuila and Tamaulipas? Why do we need so different types of militia? What's the reason to maintain regional laws where such militias are described as "paramilitary" forces? Why don't we have a regional emergency plan coordinated by civil authorities instead of by a commander of a paramilitary unit? I have a bunch of questions like these. It's just for fun, as our speaker says in his campaign's opening speech.

Its sad to hear that you're leaving the legislature. Sad  You've always been a very thorough and engaging legislator and though we've often disagreed you've brought a lot of intellectualism and great debate to the legislature.

As for your questions; even without the Militia in its current form, the same bill would have been proposed. The Northeast had no problems trying to do the same thing with their National Guard and the Midwest would have presumably used their National Guard if annexing the Pacific as well. The name doesn't really encourage or discourage odd actions from the legislature, its nothing more than a reflection of what created it. The South has always been a very individualistic and government-distrusting region. The creation of the less centrally organized Milita is just a reflection of this. Calling them paramilitary was probably a mistake on the part of those long ago who wrote the bill, but it still reflects the idea that the government isn't the only armed group out there. Its all very tied in to American gun culture.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2013, 08:50:38 PM »

As y'all may have seen the Militia was victorious in court. Baconking did an admirable job defending us. Now we should wrap this up. Does anyone have anything else to comment on? I personally like the Militia, it fits our region's unique culture and is a less objectionable part of our Southern weirdness.
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2013, 09:28:26 PM »

As for your questions; even without the Militia in its current form, the same bill would have been proposed. The Northeast had no problems trying to do the same thing with their National Guard and the Midwest would have presumably used their National Guard if annexing the Pacific as well. The name doesn't really encourage or discourage odd actions from the legislature, its nothing more than a reflection of what created it. The South has always been a very individualistic and government-distrusting region. The creation of the less centrally organized Milita is just a reflection of this. Calling them paramilitary was probably a mistake on the part of those long ago who wrote the bill, but it still reflects the idea that the government isn't the only armed group out there. Its all very tied in to American gun culture.

I think attitudes in the North East region don't justify illegal attempts of invasion in the Pacific region by the South's paramilitary forces. OTOH I can hardly see anything positive in distrusting  the government. An exaggerate attitude in the opposite way might be silly in certain cases, but anyway I think the best approach for the relationship between federal and regional governments is cooperation. No more and no less. The American gun culture is a big trouble, cause of violence and high murder rates, as I told SJoyce in other debate. I'm aware that it has deep roots in the psychology of the population, but fortunately more and more voices are demanding a firearm policy based in common sense.

I still think that it's urgent putting some order in the state of these forces and, honestly, I don't  believe it's useful (and even PiT agreed on this) to maintain the current structure of separate militias with similar functions. Also, I don't think this goes in the interest of the South's population and I'd like to hear some convincing reasons to preserve militias as they are now, because I can't find them.

Thank you for your previous words, BTW.
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2013, 05:40:03 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
[/quote]

For the record.
Logged
Supersonic
SupersonicVenue
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,162
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2013, 11:09:58 AM »

As y'all may have seen the Militia was victorious in court. Baconking did an admirable job defending us. Now we should wrap this up. Does anyone have anything else to comment on? I personally like the Militia, it fits our region's unique culture and is a less objectionable part of our Southern weirdness.

No, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the status quo, and that is what I shall support.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2013, 01:56:19 PM »

Any more comments? I'll open a vote in a few hours otherwise.
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2013, 03:34:49 PM »

Well, the Court's sentence quoted above states clearly that the decision in favour of the defendant was due to the senatorial acknowledgement in 2006 (which eventually might be reversed), even when it's "dangerously close" to be an illegal military force. With this bill, I gave you an opportunity of reforming that "cherished institution", instead of a simple dissolution. I think we must suppress the definition of "paramilitary" consecrated in the current legislation and I proposed the creation of a National Guard, preserving some elements of the previous legislation with the merging of the different, superfluous and unnecessary militia corps, which only burden the regional budget an which only utility is to satisfy a "military" spirit in certain people proud to distrust the federal government, in the illusion of certain "independence". My will, far from being an attempt of destroying the regional identity, was giving an appropriate form to our National Guard, besides a necessary social utility. I encourage legislators to give an affirmative vote and to develop an urgent and complementary legislation on prevention of risks. I don't need to remember you that we're living in a region vulnerable to natural catastrophes like that Hurricane Katrina of bad memory, floods, fires and a long etcetera.

Needless to say that I'm not going to endorse any candidate to the 'imperial' dignity opposed to any reform.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 13 queries.