|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 20, 2017 10:26:39 GMT -6
The Naval Organization & Command Act (NOCA)
WHEREAS, "The Glorious (but Unarmed) Royal Fleet Act" submitted by Robert Madison and Wes Erni officially created the Royal Talossan Navy on 30 November 1987, and WHEREAS, in July of 1998, former Prime Minister Chirisch Caveir re-established Talossa’s Navy by way of Prime Dictate, and WHEREAS, “The Naval Reorganization Act” (35RZ32) did little more than formally align the Armed Forces of the Kingdom of Talossa into the BUREAU OF THE NAVY and lay out a loose rank structure with little regard to the rich & deep history, heraldry, and tradition of the Armed Services community, now THEREFORE, the current body of Section I of the el Lexhatx shall be rescinded and replaced TEMPORARILY with: “The Deputy Minister of the Interior for Defence shall, in consultation with the Admiral of the Fleet and with approval of the Interior Ministry, promulgate a code of military regulations to be known as the Uniform Code of Military Organization (UCMO) for the purpose of the organization, training and discipline of the Talossan Armed Forces. The UCMO shall reflect the professionalism of the Armed Forces of the Kingdom of Talossa as well as recognize the relations of our great nation’s place in retrospect to the other great nations and allied forces of the world.” Upon the completion of the UMCO and it's approval as a functional base text of a modern military code by the Zui, Section I shall be updated and replaced with the new UMCO under the condition that it is codified and structured to align properly with the other Section of the el Lexhatx. The passage of this bill authorizes the development of UMCO, and establishes said Code's authority. Respectfully Proposed, Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, MC Senior Fellow, RSAK
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 20, 2017 15:45:10 GMT -6
Interesting, although the King (as Commander in Chief) as well as the PM may need to be involved in this process for Organic reasons, but I don't know for sure.
You should definitely craft the military code before we pass this.
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 20, 2017 17:43:08 GMT -6
No nation on earth, Monarchy or otherwise, has their Chief Executive and/or senior Legislative Leader directly involved the development of their military code. Even Washington diverted to his military leaders for the original version of the US' Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Of course, it has to have governmental approval from His Majesty and the PM, but the concept of them helping craft it is unprecedented.
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 20, 2017 17:44:03 GMT -6
Current Section I details would remain in effect until the Code is crafted
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 20, 2017 19:12:29 GMT -6
No nation on earth, Monarchy or otherwise, has their Chief Executive and/or senior Legislative Leader directly involved the development of their military code. Even Washington diverted to his military leaders for the original version of the US' Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Of course, it has to have governmental approval from His Majesty and the PM, but the concept of them helping craft it is unprecedented. I didn't mean that they had to be directly involved with drafting the code, only that they might need to approve changes (the King moreso than the PM, since the PM can fire people if they do things he/she doesn't like)
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 20, 2017 20:20:00 GMT -6
Of course. The commissions and enlistments are granted by the King and all serve at the pleasure of both he & the PM. That would be in the Code in the section over Commissions & Enlistments.
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 23, 2017 10:22:19 GMT -6
Interesting, although the King (as Commander in Chief) as well as the PM may need to be involved in this process for Organic reasons, but I don't know for sure. You should definitely craft the military code before we pass this. An outline, based on the original NOCA, could be immediately put into place upon passage. It's basically a more detailed version of what is already on the books. That said, a full Military Code is... at least in the beginning... a very fluid document that will take months to write. But as I mentioned, there's no reason we can't place the revised NOCA... and either leave the current structure or the original NOCA's structure in place... while we put the code together.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 29, 2017 20:21:32 GMT -6
I'm not sure that this bill was ready to be clarked. For one thing, one part of the bill says that the military will continue under the current title I, but the same bill repeals title I without officially reinstating it anywhere.
I don't think I could vote for this bill in its current form. If you give me some time I could reformat it for you.
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 29, 2017 21:07:31 GMT -6
I'm not sure that this bill was ready to be clarked. For one thing, one part of the bill says that the military will continue under the current title I, but the same bill repeals title I without officially reinstating it anywhere. I don't think I could vote for this bill in its current form. If you give me some time I could reformat it for you. Please do! I was trying to incorporate the concerns so far expressed... namely what governs the Navy in the interim while the UCMO is developed. My theory behind NOCA is it would authorize the development and secure final authority of a military code, clarifying the importance of said code without having to go through the head ache of writing something to be presented to the Zui that is, in fact, a set of Ministry regulations that short of authorizing the replacement of Section I with the wording above... the Zui doesn't need to be involved. It's the Minister that manages the Navy and the Fleet Brass that create, monitor and enforce the code.
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 29, 2017 21:12:50 GMT -6
I'm not sure that this bill was ready to be clarked. For one thing, one part of the bill says that the military will continue under the current title I, but the same bill repeals title I without officially reinstating it anywhere. I don't think I could vote for this bill in its current form. If you give me some time I could reformat it for you. That said, is my current revision better?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Oct 30, 2017 10:25:50 GMT -6
I have a couple of concerns about this bill in its current form.
Part of this concerns this part: "This document supersedes any previous Prime Dictate or law concerning the establishment and administration of the Navy. The passage of this bill authorizes the development of UMCO, and establishing said Code's authority." As I understand this will not become part of the Lexhatx, thus creating an active statute outside the Lexhatx. I think that's very undesirable. Additionally, I don't know if there is any currently active PD or law about this, but if there is I don't believe a document that's not on the leve of statutory law should be able to supercede it.
Secondly, you mentioned that "Of course. The commissions and enlistments are granted by the King and all serve at the pleasure of both he & the PM. That would be in the Code in the section over Commissions & Enlistments.", but that seems to contradict this law. After all, changes to the code can be made without the approval of either, so no third party approval will legally be neccesary. If we already know that we want this to be the case, why not include it in the Lexhatx? (That said, I don't necessarily agree the King does need to approve enlistments. Either way, we should probably be clear on this.)
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 30, 2017 13:16:57 GMT -6
I have a couple of concerns about this bill in its current form. Part of this concerns this part: "This document supersedes any previous Prime Dictate or law concerning the establishment and administration of the Navy. The passage of this bill authorizes the development of UMCO, and establishing said Code's authority." As I understand this will not become part of the Lexhatx, thus creating an active statute outside the Lexhatx. I think that's very undesirable. Additionally, I don't know if there is any currently active PD or law about this, but if there is I don't believe a document that's not on the leve of statutory law should be able to supercede it. Secondly, you mentioned that "Of course. The commissions and enlistments are granted by the King and all serve at the pleasure of both he & the PM. That would be in the Code in the section over Commissions & Enlistments.", but that seems to contradict this law. After all, changes to the code can be made without the approval of either, so no third party approval will legally be neccesary. If we already know that we want this to be the case, why not include it in the Lexhatx? (That said, I don't necessarily agree the King does need to approve enlistments. Either way, we should probably be clear on this.) How's the version now?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Oct 30, 2017 13:53:51 GMT -6
Having thought it over more, I still think it would be best if you made the code first and then we repealed the current Title I, so we wouldn't have to deal with "temporarily" repealing something. Nothing is stopping you from working with the Interior Minister (who will be me) to make this code right now.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 30, 2017 14:56:01 GMT -6
Having thought it over more, I still think it would be best if you made the code first and then we repealed the current Title I, so we wouldn't have to deal with "temporarily" repealing something. Nothing is stopping you from working with the Interior Minister (who will be me) to make this code right now. Looking at the current Title I, it seems that the authority for these regulations already exists at I.1.1.6. So all we really need to do is delete the portions of Title I that we want the Ministry to be able to change by regulation.
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 30, 2017 15:17:39 GMT -6
Having thought it over more, I still think it would be best if you made the code first and then we repealed the current Title I, so we wouldn't have to deal with "temporarily" repealing something. Nothing is stopping you from working with the Interior Minister (who will be me) to make this code right now. I'm apprehensive, as a Full-Time Graduate student, into spending the hundreds of hours to delevop something I have seen most in the Zui could care less about having. If we have a military, we need a real Military Code... if it's not something anyone but two or three people care about, why have one. I'll spearhead the development of UMCO, but not till after the project is approved. I tried, using my knowledge and skills as an aide to a two-star and as the State G-1 for my State's Guard to draft the original NOCA and was told it was too long. I feel I wasted a ton of time and effort on the whole effort, finding it frustrating to try and develop something nobody either wants or understands. Advice as to where I should go from here or just hang it up?
|
|