View Topic

Hi guys, it's Horse running for Underhusen. Like Denth said, you DON'T know much about us, so I will tell you. I joined NS about 3 years ago, and moved to a region called the Region of Empires. Now, after this initial move to my first region, I moved to 12 regions afterwards, holding 31 offices after that region(28 if you don't count military roles) , and writing one constitution along the way(which you can find Here). My journey in NS has been a long (and one often filled with being backstabbed ), but I think my experience from being all over NS can be a lot of help here. I will be working with Denth to try and draft up a constitution, and hopefully, we can get that out soon.
Here are all of the region I have held a office in.
Enjoy!

Spoiler

Region of Empires: Foreign Affairs.

The Black Riders:Private, and First Private(or whatever the rank after private is).

The Black Hawks:Private.

Great Union Of Empires:Head of Foreign Affairs(X2), along with External Affairs (X2).
United Republic Of Nations:Head of Foreign Affairs(X2), Head of External Affairs, Minister of defense, President, Vice President(X2).

The New Democratic Union:Minister Of culture.

The Communist Region:Minister Of Justice (X3), Minister of Foreign Affairs(X2), Minister of External Affairs, Vice Delegate (x2), and Delegate.

The True Communist Region: Minister of Justice (X2), and Delegate.
Spiritus: Region Assembly (X2), Minister of Information.
Wintreath: Jarl of Integration, help with the Military leadership.
TSP: Associate Justice, Ambassador to Osiris.

I hope you don't mind also getting the Cormac Ten.

The Cormac Ten (with some edits)

1. What do you feel is the most important legislative goal to be accomplished during the coming term?

2. What do you feel should be the nature of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government? Do you believe the relationship between the two under the proposed legislature is appropriately balanced or out of balance, and why?

3. What are your beliefs about our proposed judicial system? Please be as detailed as possible.

4. Name one thing that might go wrong with one of our laws and how you would fix it.

5. Do you see treaties as a means to develop a new relationship with a region, a means to make official an already solid relationship, some combination of these, or something else entirely? Please be as detailed as possible.

6. Under what circumstances would you reject a treaty submitted to the legislature by the King?

7. Do you believe that executive ministers should be confirmed by the legislature? Why or why not?

8. Do you believe that our current system for the legislature is going to work or do you think we should transition to an assembly-style legislature open to all or most citizens? Why?

9. Do you think we should have an appointed or elected WA Delegate? Why?

10. What are your views on our Military Alignment?

GOD FUC-
Yeah, I don't mind. .

1) What do you feel is the most important legislative goal to be accomplished during the coming term?

Definitely getting the constitution hammered out, that should be our ONLY objective. Until then, everything else (for this branch) should be placed on the backburner.

2) I believe the legislature should be writing laws, and the executive should be picking out ministers/leading the region. A few other things may be added, but that's really it. The legislature should be allowed to remove the executive, and the executive should be able to pick the ministers, as I stated above.

3) I actually really like it. We have a mixture of the two branches ( an appointed and two elected officials), which is a great use of balances in power of the government.

4) I don't think there is answer for this one.

5)Both. Treaties allow us to cement some relationships with a official "statement", while others we have a weak relationship, but the treaties improve them. Sometimes through festivals and other things.

6)If the treaty forced the military to help a foreign military out, even if we objected, or submit to the will of another region. We should have control of our military, no if's, and's, or but's. I would also reject a treaty if it made us not able to make treaties with others. I'd rather us NOT be restricted by a treaty.

7)No. If we can trust the executive to lead the region, we can trust it to pick out ministers.

8 ) I think it's going to work great. More open assembly styles don't usually work, or don't produce good laws/ amendments.

9)Appointed. I believe that we can trust the King to choose a respectable and great delegate for the region.

10) I'm all for allowing us to do what we want/need to do. I don't, however, see anyone pushing for us to start raiding. If we want to create a independent military, I wouldn't oppose it, but I wouldn't exactly support it, seeing as how I'm a defender.I support  the military in it's current state, as a Defender military, due to that I am a member of the UDL. I hope that the military is only ever used in defending Wintreath and founderless regions, and is not used in the takeover of other regions.

Time for some follow-up questions! Yay!

In the answer for question 3 when you put a brief explaination in parenthesis "()" why did you type "a appointed" rather than "an appointed"? Should we trust someone with such bad grammar to be elected to the Underhusen? What would be the disasters that would take place when bills get drafted? What might happen if you infected the Constitution with your poor grammar? What if you ended up destroying the region because of this?!?!?

Okay, for real this time:

You stated in the answer to the second question, that the legislative should be able to remove the executive (members thereof); by that might you also mean the King and his associated royal family?

Also, you stated in the answer to the tenth question that you hoped the military is used only for defending purposes and not for the takeover of other regions; to your opinion, might war (as in a passed declaration of war allowing raiding against a specific region/organization) be an justifiable exception to this?

Time for some follow-up questions! Yay!

In the answer for question 3 when you put a brief explaination in parenthesis "()" why did you type "a appointed" rather than "an appointed"? Should we trust someone with such bad grammar to be elected to the Underhusen? What would be the disasters that would take place when bills get drafted? What might happen if you infected the Constitution with your poor grammar? What if you ended up destroying the region because of this?!?!?

Okay, for real this time:

You stated in the answer to the second question, that the legislative should be able to remove the executive (members thereof); by that might you also mean the King and his associated royal family?

Also, you stated in the answer to the tenth question that you hoped the military is used only for defending purposes and not for the takeover of other regions; to your opinion, might war (as in a passed declaration of war allowing raiding against a specific region/organization) be an justifiable exception to this?

I think the King should be, if it ever comes to that, a legislative AND citizen vote. I think that ministers should purely a legislative vote to remove them. 

hoped the military is used only for defending purposes and not for the takeover of other regions; to your opinion, might war (as in a passed declaration of war allowing raiding against a specific region/organization) be an justifiable exception to this?

That's more situational for me. If it's someone who has tried to coup Wintreath, then yes. If it's just someone like , say, TNI, then no.

Thanks! That'll be all for now.