What effects will the new Constitutional Amendment have?
Day 1,188, 17:32
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Joe DaSmoe
This article is about the amendment to our Constitution that was just passed in Congress. All of the discussion that led to this dramatic change is on private boards, so we cannot even see the discussion, transparency, ftw.
Officially, It can be found here:
http://eusaforums.com/forum/index.php/topic,3832.0.html
Section of our Constitution that has been amended.
IV. Military Principles:
1. The military shall be organized as prescribed in the an Appendix titled 'Constitutional Appendix: Military Organization & Roles'.
2. The Constitutional Appendix: Military Organization & Roles shall be modified following identical procedures as a Constitutional Amendment.
Constitutional Appendix: Military Organization & Roles
The Joint Chiefs of Staff shall be composed of the Commanding Officers, Executive Officers, the Chairman, and the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (when not also serving as a Branch CO or XO). The Joint Chiefs of Staff shall, collectively, set policy for the military at large, and execute the orders of the President. Each Branch shall set policy and procedure internally, except when in conflict with a military wide policy, or Constitutional directive.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs shall be elected by the full membership of the Joint Chiefs, from their own membership, every three months. No person may serve more than two successive terms. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs shall have the following duties:
1. The Chairman coordinates battles and directs support as set by the objectives of the President.
2. The Chairman shall act as a conduit and point of contact to the military for the President and Congress.
3. The Chairman shall advise the president on the capabilities and best use of the military, in concert with the President’s foreign policy.
4. The Chairman shall regularly report to the President on the state of readiness of the military.
5. The Chairman shall receive full access to Congressional and Executive forums, in order to advise them on matters pertaining to the military.
6. The Chairman shall oversee the implementation of military policy, as set by the Joint Chiefs.
7. The Chairman shall lead discussions of the Joint Chiefs, and may cast a second, tie-breaking vote, when required.
8. The Chairman shall appoint Branch Commanding Officers, when there is no Executive Officer to succeed them, pending JCS approval.
9. The Chairman shall follow any and all orders issued to him by the President.
10. The Chairman shall appoint a Vice-Chairman to assist him in these duties, and to act in his place, when he is unavailable.
a. The Vice-Chairman serves at the pleasure of the Chairman, and may be removed from his position by him at any time.
b. The Vice-Chairman shall act as Chairman, whenever the position is vacant.
11. The Chairman shall have the authority to appoint Advisers to the JCS, to serve a specific function, listing that function in the post announcing their appointment, on the JCS sub-forum.
The Branch Commanding Officers shall appoint their Executive Officers, and all other officers in their branch, when a vacancy occurs. Appointment of Branch Executive Officers must be confirmed, via vote, by a majority of the sitting JCS. Upon the retirement or dismissal of a Commanding Officer, the Executive Officer shall be elevated to Commanding Officer. Should a vacancy in both positions occur simultaneously the most senior Officer of the Branch shall be acting Commanding Officer, until such time as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs can appoint a Commanding Officer. Such appointment shall require the approval of a majority of the Joint Chiefs.
The President and Speaker of the House shall be given JCS forum access, via masks labeled ‘President’ and ‘Speaker’ on the military forum, in order to allow for better communication, and ease of information sharing. The President and Speaker shall be given the following information, as requeste
😛
1. Budgets by branch
2. A listing of all government owned communes, broken down by branch
3. A listing of any jointly owned operations
4. Standard supply allotment by branch
5. The total number of troops, and average strength by branch
6. Joint military orders (via military forum access)
The President, Speaker, and Chairman shall share this information with Congress, as needed, in order to facilitate the budgeting process. The Speaker shall be responsible for transmitting this information to the Select Committee on Intelligence, as he receives updated information. Should the Speaker not be a member of the SCI, for whatever reason, the Senior Deputy Speaker, who is also a member of the SCI, shall serve as the Congressional representative on the JCS forums, and shall execute any other responsibilities listed herein.
The President shall have the authority to dismiss the Chairman, pending a Congressional vote affirming or overturning his decision. A simple majority of sitting Congressmen shall be required to overturn a Presidential dismissal of the Chairman.
Congress may initiate a vote to remove any member of the Joint Chiefs. Ten Congressmen must approve of the motion, and two-thirds of sitting Congressmen must vote in the affirmative to pass the measure.
Votes to remove the CJCS or any JCS member, that originate from within the JCS, may be initiated by any member of the JCS, simply by posting, on the JCS sub-forum, that they wish to do so. Should at least two other members support this motion, the President shall open a thread to vote Yea or Nay on the removal of said member. Such a measure requires two-thirds of the votes cast to pass.
Upon the creation of a vacancy in the position of CJCS the President shall open a thread, on the JCS sub-forum, accepting nominations for the position. Three nominations will be required to be considered. Upon the passage of 24 hours, the President shall announce those persons nominated, and open a voting thread. Should no person receive a majority, the candidate with the fewest number of votes shall be dropped, and a second vote shall take place. Voting shall last for 24 hours, or until every member has voted.
On the surface it looks ok. I am all for the accountability part of it at least. However, with Congress having the power to vote out military commanders, the risk for personal dislike and backroom dealing to take place isn't right in my opinion. In essence, this bill gives Congress the ability to oust someone who differs in opinion with the governing body, even if the have been deeply involved with backroom foreign policy and have been key to battle coordination.
We have had several instances of the President/Cabinet/Congress and JCS leaders bumping heads and this seems to me to strip some of the authority of the military to stand up to one term Presidents who cannot see the big picture and only wish to glorify themselves in game. (Anyone remember Uncle Sam?) This amendment will allow the people who maintain power throughout the executive month after month and those entrenched in Congress to in effect, run our military. Harlot is likely turning over in his grave.
I understand that this amendment was likely a compromise. Many I thought would never vote to allow the forum political clan to run our military, likely voted to get the accountability part throw in. I'm just not sure this is a good idea. We are close to facing a full scale invasion and now may not be the right time to dramatically change our military structure. A simple amendment requiring accountability would have been fine for now.
That's just my two pennies, I dig the accountability but term limiting JCS and allowing congress to oust them is going to far. After all, THERE ARE NO TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS OR TERM LIMITS FOR "CABINET POSITIONS"
HOW CONVENIENT.
What do you guys think?
~Joe
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Amerimaxx
This is a p bad law.
Voted
Voted
This is why I will never go back to the eUSA.
FAR too much BS and red tape.
Congress and the Executive are checked by direct elections. Term limits seems a fair compromise wrt the military.
Publius, I see your point. However, the Executive IS NOT checked by elections. Other than CP, the cabinet can remain the some month after month after month.
I would also point out the a congressional election can be and often is determined by these same people. A congressional election is hardly a check.
I hate the option of congress being able to vote out someone... that smells like back room politics at it's finest.
there are no term limits for congress, but individual congressmen have very little poewr compared to the JCS.
i like the change, i only wish we could see more of how it was formed.
Awful amendment. This needs to be fixed before it is abused.
Abused? Psssshhhh. please.
Term limits for JCS personnel is an ass-backwards idea.
You think there's chaos in the military now? For what defense would we have if an under-qualified candidate grabbed authority over the military, just because the PotUS and Congress like him/her better than a qualified candidate?
Ain't here to argue, just get people to think. Voted. Shoutin' this. ~
Pretty bad law, doubt it is enforceable
Only 62% of the members of congress voted on this amendment. The total "yes" votes represented 46.5% of the total members of congress. I hope these numbers are food for thought.
When I see a term limit on SoH I'll be excited out this.
And they say we need more transparency in the military. Hypocrisy ftw.
Term limits for Congress, President and cabinet positions are needed as well Leroy.
manipulation, how like . . . REAL and stuff...... almost like the elections to eCongress . . . and stuff.
An example of where game mechanics and REAL or ROLE PLAY REAL pass in the night . . .
There is nothing new under the nearest star . . .
Just so you know, the Discussion thread will be public tomorrow. We're going through it to make sure nothing the military would consider OPSEC gets out. Congress does not mind transparency, we're trying to make sure military concerns are seen to.
Congress needs 2/3 of all members to agree to a removal. That is such a high bar, it's near impossible.
Also, the only term limit is on the CJCS. The rest of the JCS can sit there forever.
A step in the right direction but imperfect. At the very least checks and balances need to be symmetrical. Here we have some sensible restraints on military leadership. The fine tuning is required on ensuring responsible behavior by Congress and the Executive.
definitely not what is needed, there is good in this bill, but the bad outweighs it easily
Of those who approve of the amendment, how many have served in the military. I do not mean the TC or a few weeks in one of the other branches. I mean served in a non tc branch for at least several months.
Hey! I am just waiting for the impeachments to start. I hear I might be in the chopping block. I would LOVE to hear the arguments for that.
I made a thread in the Congress section so the public can discuss this
http://eusaforums.com/forum/index.php/topic,3902.new.html#new
I hate to say it but I don't see a real reason for this. I do not agree with everything the Mil decides but the do the job and are one of the more cohesive groups in this game (beside elites).
IMHO, the Mil doesn't try to run the country and Congress couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper sack in a battle, they'd be to busy having discussions about who should do what.
It requires 2/3rds of all members of Congress to impeach a member of the JCS. That's hardly the type of action that can be taken on a whim - it may not even be possible at all, as quite a few members of Congress seem to ignore the forum for the duration of their terms.
@seeker1
Nine. The vote thread is public by the way, so that's information anyone can verify.
pretty hypocritical imo
requires 2/3 of all Congress members to get a JCS fired, but through the magic of sloppy legislation the Constitution says it can be changed by 2/3 of quorum... this week that was 2/3 of 19 instead of 2/3 of 52.
gee, I wonder who was responsible for that bit of crafty wording in the Constitution?
wait'll y'all see the original Proposal.. and look who all was on board with it in that form! a few Congressmen fought hard for two days to get that thing fixed or thrown out before it was put up for Approvals and Vote.. even then people voted YES while still saying it was not quite right.
oh, and.. this Amendment provides three ways to fire the CJCS-- the President, Congress, or JCS can initiate a process to remove the CJCS. how many ways are there to fire a President? one. and firing the Speaker of the House? one.
Harlot saves us!
To everyonec laiming the JCS are about to get picked off, I'll tell you what. 10g bet right here and now not a single JCS impeachment proposal will happen in the next 3 months. Any takers?
Joe, People tried to insist that there be term limits and accountability put on cabinet and appointed exec roles. The people who enjoy those role basically said it wouldn't be acceptable then bent over the military and proceeded to rape it. It will be interesting to see how sanitized the public version will be given what I've seen of the process.
Of course all that would be required to overturn this amendment is for 2/3rds of a future congress on a weekly sign-in to agree to vote it out. Which is NOT impossible nor unlikely. A future congress could just take the good parts and remove the term limits part or pass an amendment imposing term limits on appointed (I.e. Non-elected) roles to force turnover and accountability into the exec branch the same way they did to the military.
I also like how Pfeiffer attempts to claim that congress has nothing to hide in this instance. Had that been the case the discussion, draft, revision, vote, vote cancellation, re-vote would not have been held in private. Also still a mystery is who actually worked on the bill beyond the few who have stepped forward to admit they did. Seems when it comes to accountability and openness its perfectly acceptable to hide behind secrecy so long as your NOT in the military.
Thanks to the various members of congress who answered my question and provided me copies of the bill in its various draft forums. I'd also like to thank my eWife for pointing out that she wouldn't answer questions because of her role as both JCS and Congresswoman.
That point is moot St Krems. Its the point of it and the way it was done.
You guys do not term limit SoH, SCI, Congress, Cabinet, EC, even CP for that matter.
Its written poorly and singles out the military. It was also passed with a 2/3 majority of Congressional Quorum, which is notoriously low all the time. What was it this week 25?
You want to take the Constitution seriously? Then put things as this before the public and ALL of Congress. Not just the forum on some hidden board.
JCS has needed term limits and *some* kind of checks and balances for over a year. I don't know if this is the right way to go about it, but Congress realizes that the eUS Military, if collectively inspired by unethical politics, can become the largest single voting block in the nation.
Something has to happen to break the JCS out of its totalitarian groupthink. I think this will do it. For that reason alone, I support this amendment.
Thanks for the post Porter, but I dont see why we cant discuss this right here bro.
because discussing shit on the comments section of articles is a terrible way of communicating compared to a forum.
Yawn.
What you people fail to realize is that the Military is a tool for the countries electorate to use. Not the other way around. If Americans elect another Uncle Sam for President than be it on our heads for doing something that stupid. And if America elects a Congress that decides to remove the ***CJCS*** then that is also Americas fault. But it would take 2/3 of a vote and even then it would only remove the person from CJCS position, they wouldn't be ejected from the military and would even be able to stay on the JCS. Why is that so big of a deal?
As it is, if someone gets to the top of the military and sits in that position ad infinitum there is nothing anyone can do about it, ever. How is that fair? You can say the same is true about the Executive, but if the country was really upset that someone stayed in the Cabinet for too long, they could elect someone that promises not to have that person in the Cabinet. Easy as that. Until now, the only recourse to change leadership in the military would have been for Congress to defund them. And that's not a very logical process.
So what do you haters have that is a better system? The current one? If that's all you got, just STFU and deal with it, because we changed the system for the better.
why, Krems, so the bias of Forum Moderation can quash any opposition? so personal attacks and name calling can run rampant? why not here? why not in Comments sections to twenty newspaper articles written in opposition to this action?
Military needs reform.. popular notion. all kinds of criticism, a fair amount is real and reasonable.
But an Executive Order, backed up by the Speaker of the House, to the CJCS... never happened. the most direct way of communicating that there were serious concerns, that must be addressed, was not done.
Before this Amendment to the Constitution, there was already in place a procedure for removal and replacement of the CJCS. It was followed, it failed, and here is the answer-- make a new rule!
Sure is fallacies in here.
Comparing top level leadership to mid level leadership is not a fair comparison. Saying that "the cabinet doesnt have term limits" as an argument against term limits is retarded because cabinet level positions are not at all equivalent to JCS members. Apples and oranges.
a more adequate comparison would be to compare mid level officer term limits to cabinet members term limits.
There are none. In either case. null argument.
@Custer
And what rule/procedure is this? I don't think any President/Congress has attempted to remove a CJCS, they haven't with Jankems and he's been CJCS practically since it was created minus Harlot. You seem to be talking out your ass on this one
You keep saying this was mostly needed then continue to hold your position because you have no good points and simply want to defend the military and hate Pfieffer. If you weren't attached to either of those Mental Biases you probably wouldn't have much bad to say about this change.
hes probably referring to HR vs NXNW
"And what rule/procedure is this? I don't think any President/Congress has attempted to remove a CJCS, they haven't with Jankems and he's been CJCS practically since it was created minus Harlot. You seem to be talking out your ass on this one"
Just to clarify history a bit so the public is not confused, after Harlot, Gaius Julius served as CJCS for approx. 3 months, then NXNW for approx. 6 months.
ask Pfeiffer.. or should I break the now-not-a-rule and post the portion of an IRC PM in which he tells me he played a role in a JCS vote to remove the CJCS and it came up short at 50%..?
Chocolate McSkittles Day 1,188, 2😇6
Sure is fallacies in here.
Comparing top level leadership to mid level leadership is not a fair comparison. Saying that "the cabinet doesnt have term limits" as an argument against term limits is retarded because cabinet level positions are not at all equivalent to JCS members. Apples and oranges.
a more adequate comparison would be to compare mid level officer term limits to cabinet members term limits.
There are none. In either case. null argument.
========================================================
Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander. I think thats the best argument to be made. You all thought it was a "Great" idea to place term limits and the ability to remove people from office into a pre-drafted bill whos authors for the most part either refuse to be known or dont want to because then their motives for revenge would be public.
So you know, turn about is fair play. Time to bring accountability and term limits to the Exec appointments.
Doesn't go far enough - the JCS members must rotate out of office at regular, staggered durations as well and remain out to prevent consecutive terms. Additionally, Congress, the sitting president and the current JCS members should ALL get to vote on nomination of new members to the JCS to provide the right balance of civilian control and internal knowledge of e-military needs
"Term limits for Congress, President and cabinet positions are needed as well Leroy."
But are unenforceable within game mechanics. Since the whole e-US military is outside the game, then those who control the funding can control those who control these allocated funds.
So....this opens up the military to take over congress and vote out the President then right?
>Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander. I think thats the best argument to be made
And its a poor one.
@Relorian
So you are suggesting we implement term limits on both JCS and Cabinet members? Sounds like some is grasping straws out of spite.
You're right, Harlot is turning over in his grave, but it's because our JCS leadership has been nothing like what we had under his reign. If we had someone of Harlot's quality none of this would have ever happened. We made sure the (C)JCS was fairly relaxed and unregulated way back when we did military reforms because we expected to always have a Harlot around. That was obviously a stupid expectation. No CJCS or JCS team has ever been the quality we had back then.