IDS 2: South East Militia Dissolution Act (Failed)

[Supersonic]

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?

[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.

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.

[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.

[Supersonic]

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.

[Supersonic]

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.

[Supersonic]

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.

[Supersonic]

Nay.