General Assembly
Security Council Governor: 
The Community of LDA Council of Ministers Staff
WA Delegate: None.
Founder: 
The Community of LDA Council of Ministers Staff
Last WA Update:
Embassies: Liberty Democratic Alliance.
LDA Ministers Council is home to a single nation.
Today's World Census Report
The Largest Insurance Industry in LDA Ministers Council
The World Census posed as door-to-door salespeople in order to establish which nations have the most extensive Insurance industries.
As a region, LDA Ministers Council is ranked 14,669th in the world for Largest Insurance Industry.
 | Nation | WA Category | Motto | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | The Community of LDA Council of Ministers Staff | Civil Rights Lovefest | “Holder of the Council of Ministers of LDA” |
Regional Happenings
- : The Community of LDA Council of Ministers Staff updated the World Factbook entry.
- : The Community of LDA Council of Ministers Staff updated the World Factbook entry.
- : The Community of LDA Council of Ministers Staff updated the World Factbook entry.
- : The Community of LDA Council of Ministers Staff updated the World Factbook entry.
- :
The Haitian Revolutionaries of The Free Black Republic of the region Pecan Sandies proposed constructing embassies.
- : The Community of LDA Council of Ministers Staff changed the regional password.
- : The Community of LDA Council of Ministers Staff password-protected the region.
- :
The Theocracy of Armored Water departed this region for The Rejected Realms.
- : The Community of LDA Council of Ministers Staff ejected The Theocracy of Armored Water from the region.
- : Shadow archangels 33 departed this region for The Rejected Realms.
LDA Ministers Council Regional Message Board
Loading...
Agreed. It would be preferable to scrap the commission, and discuss/apply changes and new attributions to the already established system. Taking away the election ratifications from the Judiciary is undesirable - it is currently one of the only responsibilities this sphere has.
Other than modifying Clause 1.2.3, I disagree with the idea that the whole commission should be scraped. Sure, we could apply changes but the reasoning and idea behind the ERA is that an independent organization should be established to handle or at least help handle the integrity of elections. And as I agreed with 
Ineva that having Ministers in the Election Board would be conflicting, I did not completely rule out the possibility of them collaborating in the Commission. There's a difference.
On the ERA of 2025 comment:
One: the Act didn't take the role of the Judicary, when it comes to elections, at least not in the current version. For example, the Act no longer has it where the Board had the power to declare or (in the language of the Act) "determine" the validity. And that is just one duty that the Judicary has. All of the clause that you have mentioned all address the problem of one minor subclause. And once you remove that, you get a Commission that doesn't rob the judicary, so to speak.
Two: Noting two things that 1) the Board has administrative power over the Commission, along with the Commissioner and 2) that I revised the Act by removing the clause granting the Ministers the privilege to serve in the Board and has removed the clause giving the Prime Minister power to appoint a Election Commissioner, giving that power to the Commission, I would think that now I satisfied this argument of "the Executive branch having control over a what is supposed to be a non partisan organization."
Three: Further refering to Point 1 and 2, I believe that this argument that the concern on elected officials overseeing elections seems contradictory to the statement that you had no problems with cabinet officials, who you seem to imply being elected officials, overseeing elections.
Four: Refer to Point 3
In what respects do you believe the Judiciary has thus far failed to do this?
To quote myself:
My problem is not with Ministers on the whole taking part of this Election Commission; rather, it is with anyone who directly seems to benefit from elections taking part of the Commission. There are many positions in regional government--such as my previous/current(?) post, or those of the Judiciary--that are filled via appointment rather than elections. Occupiers of these positions would not directly benefit from "rigging" election protocol. However, an elected official or candidate of an elected position most certainly could, which is why I object to his participation in supervising electoral integrity. That job should be left to those who are unelected, preferably, such as the Judiciary, which is the case now. Really, the principal matter is preventing the P.M. or declared candidates for the P.M. position from attaining a position within the Election Commission and further Board. 1.2.2 of the ERA would suffice if it were to change "all residents" to, perhaps, "all residents who are neither the Prime Minister nor running for the position", for example.
I'd direct you to 1.1.1, bullet points 3 and 4, as other seeming encroachments on Judiciary duty. Even bullet point 1 could be read as a judicial duty, although, I suppose "enforcement" could entail different tasks associated--if it does, that ought to be reflected. The only stated objective of the four bullet points that substantially differs from current judicial duties is bullet point 2, hence my suggestion for a more secretarial emphasis on this proposed Commission. That direction would significantly reduce the overlap currently present between the proposed E.C. and Judiciary, and would further satisfy the wants for a more robust dispatch system than we have currently, which has been expressed by the likes of American Generations and myself. I know for fact this purpose is desired by at least a few within the L.D.A.. On the other hand, I cannot seem to recall a pressing urge within the L.D.A. for the reinforcement of electoral integrity. Whilst I understand that things can change for the worst, it seems that the status quo of the Judiciary serving many of these duties has sufficed the region for a long time, so, I'm hesitant to divest them of their current electoral obligations to fix what simply isn't broken.
The Commissioner still appears to be appointed by the P.M.--which is better than him being elected via the election standards he sets, I grant, but, there may be another solution. Would you be amenable to the Judiciary making such appointments, seeing as they're being somewhat divested of their electoral tasks? Perhaps, the Election Commission and accompanying Board can be a subset of the Judiciary. The point about this Act being an unnecessary fission of the Judiciary would further present itself relevant, but, this solution may present the least drawbacks, seeing as the Judiciary is not elected and thus has little stake in sacrificing the integrity of elections.
The difference is that many Cabinet officials are, to my knowledge, not elected, but, rather, appointed. In much the same sense that I would not want appointed officials overseeing appointment processes, which likely has some bearing on why we have an elected official (i.e., the P.M.) handle appointments, inversely, I also would not want to see elected officials overseeing electoral processes, which likely, too, has some bearing on why we have an unelected body (i.e., the Judiciary) currently handle elections. This is because appointed officials overseeing appointment processes and elected officials overseeing electoral processes would both have a high stake in making such processes benefit them, whereas elected officials overseeing appointment processes and appointed officials overseeing electoral processes would have much less reason to meddle with their respective tasks, as their re-election and -appointment, respectively, would not be contingent upon the processes they oversee.
This. The main thing about ratifying an election in LDA is that the one ratifying it has nothing to win/lose. This is because you can’t be in the Judiciary and the Executive at the same time. As a Judge, your post is yours regardless of which PM is in power.
Having a commission like this outside the Judiciary is almost certainly illegal. It would get barred by the Chief Justice; worst case, the Founder would block it.
Remember that the independence of the Judiciary is guaranteed, and taking away this jurisdiction can be seen as infringing the trias politica, which is a founding principle.
Furthermore, adding such commission at this time is just packing the spheres with more posts, and we don’t have enough nations to fill these posts.
Jaroinon
The debate period has expired. However, on the bill of the ERA of 2025, I will extend the debate period by an extra 36 hours (I am revising it). I shall now send the Succession Act down to Parliament, seeing no objections or suggestions.
This will be our official channel regarding any domestic/foreign affairs situation in Liberty Democratic Alliance. Recently, Eco has gone to an extent where he's now pushing for my ban in both of the legislative chambers in UAS. Of course, this will build up a tricky situation for us, and they have refused to cooperate with us over time and time, as their bigotry continues to stay.
Therefore, I will now take any advice/discussion from this region only regarding this situation and future ones should it arise.
American Generations
Prime Minister of Liberty Democratic Alliance
They have now banned me. As per the RMB post, a period of 3 days of regional consultation is to be held, in which after that, a 3 day poll will be decided on either closing the embassy or not.
Republic of Mesque, Jaroinon, and those interested in discussion. I would like to simply close embassies with The W0rld and I am currently communicating to other regions of notes about their behavior, since many of you are against, I would like to know why you wish to not close the embassy. Is there any emotional or strategic importance you wish to truly preserve about that embassy?
To expand on the Judicial powers of the Court and to secure Justice, the Parliament shall enact this Act.
Article 1
Section 1
Definitions of this Section-
(1.1.1) Plaintiff-the Person, Organization, or the Government suing to get relief
(1.1.2) Defendant-the Person, Organization, or the Government getting sued
(1.1.3) Declaratory Relief-Where the Court declares the Action, Law, or Order invalid or unconstitutional
(1.1.4) Preliminary Injunction-an Injunction to temporarily pause an Action, Law, or Order.
(1.1.5) Writ of Habrius Coprius-an order to pause, in this case, a ban or suspension of a Nation during the case.
Section 2
(1.2.1) The Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s Counsel shall send a formal motion to a Court, consisting of a claim, reasoning, and evidence. Should the motion be inconsistent, unnecessary, or inaccurate, the Judge of the Court shall have the option to reject the motion. Should the Court hear the case, the Defendant or the Defendant’s Counsel shall write an answer to the motion.
(1.2.2) The Plaintiff/Defendant shall have a right to appoint their counsel, letting the Presiding Judge know of their decision. The Government shall provide the Plaintiff or Defendant with a Counsel appointed by them, if they can’t provide one themselves and they transmit to the Presiding Justice their wish for an appointed counsel.
(1.2.2a) The Minister of Justice shall serve as the primary counsel to the Government, but the Prime Minister may also appoint another Nation to be a secondary Counsel for the Government.
(1.2.2b) The Plaintiff or Defendant does have the right to defend themselves and shall notify the Court of such change if they choose to exercise such right.
(1.2.3) The Judge(s) of the Court shall hear the case and both parties’ Counsels or the parties themselves shall deliver their arguments to the Court. After due consideration, the Judge(s) shall deliver the opinion(s) and the majority of the Court shall issue a ruling in favor or against the plaintiff or defendant in question.
(1.2.3a) The ruling can include an order to release a person detained, keep a person detained, or restrain the actions of a government official.
(1.2.3b) The section doesn’t limit the Courts’ rulings to the actions to the actions mentioned in 3a, but all rulings must be justified with reasoning and evidence.
(1.2.3c) This shall devolve to civil cases. In criminal cases however, the Judge(s) shall rule in accordance to the jury.
(1.2.4) The Court can issue temporary restraining orders, without a need for a case, to restrict any actions from any government officials if the action itself is constitutional but may cause harm in the near future. These orders can last for a maximum of seven days. These orders cannot remove, ban, eject, or banject any officials.
(1.2.5) The Court may issue an administrative stay that will temporarily block an action from an official. These stays shall last until the end of the Court case. The same shall devolve with a Writ of Habrius Corpus, if testimony from the subject that is banned or suspended is needed in such case.
Section 3
Preamble
To establish a founding point in criminal code, shall put forth this section.
(1.3.1) It shall be prohibited for a member or resident to be engaging, previously engaged in, or about to engage in raiding or invading, to be found supporting raiders and invaders or to initate a raid or invasion on behalf of the raider region.
(1.3.1a) For the purpose of clarifying, raiding shall be not constituted if the nation in question
(a) participated in an operation to a Region that has been raided within 45 days before the operation, doing so upon the request of the Regional Leadership-the leadership before the raid,
(b) participated in an operation to defend a region from being raided or they
(c) the "raid" was a mechanic to a game, being defined under this Act as games that the NS developers made such as N-Day, and that the effect was inevitable if both affected Regions were shown to be playing it
(1.3.1b) It shall also be prohibited to aid that Nation in raiding.
(1.3.1c) The Nation shall be punished, ranging from a temporary ban, the minimum being of seven days, to a permanent ban being subject to later decisions of the Court.
(1.3.2) It shall be prohibited for a resident to bring puppets, as defined by the Cherishing True Membership Act ("CTMA"), into the Region and do the following crimes:
(1.3.2a) use the puppet(s) to go under the guise of an original person to become a member of the Region despite the owner of the puppets still being in the Region and/or in a political Office created by the Constitution or by Parliament,
(1.3.2b) use the puppet(s) to get elected or appointed to a political Office or to appoint other puppets into their administration or to the Supreme Court.
(1.3.2c) use the puppet(s) to conduct election fraud, to vote under the guise of members for the Owner or any person that the Owner supports
(1.3.2d) use the puppet(s) to force an unfair verdict either for the Owner or against a resident in a jury or as a Judge.
(1.3.2e) use the puppet(s) to unfairly ruin the foreign relations of embassy regions under the guise of being a member.
(1.3.2f) The punishment for such crimes is for all puppets and the Owner to be banned and ejected per the CTMA.
(1.3.3) It shall be prohibited for a resident to infringe the RMB Rules or to harass, dox, threaten, or blackmail a Nation in telegrams or in the RMB.
(1.3.3a) This Clause shall also apply to external sites such as Discord.
(1.3.4) The Parliament shall give forth many more criminal codes as they so needed to.
To initiate a Grand Reform over Cultural activities, such as Discord and Roleplay.
Article 1: Roleplay
Section 1
(1.1.1) The Minister of Roleplay, with the advice of the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister, shall compose a series of Rules for a nation to join the Region's Roleplay.
(1.1.2) The Council of Roleplay may act on the rules to order or recommend the Minister of Roleplay to:
(1.1.2a) revoke a nation's status in roleplay or suspend their position for a maximum of 7 days
(1.1.2b) ban the nation in question from roleplay permanently, subject to any appeal being made to the LDA Judical Court
(1.1.3) This Act shall amend Section 1.2 of the Ministry of Roleplay Act by adding the following clause which shall state, "(2a) Nations can be Members of the Council On Roleplay if they are residents in the Region, the Proxy Regions, or nations in Regions clarified in the Roleplay Act. Members engaged in roleplay in Discord may also be eligible to be a member, given that they only exercise such duties in Discord."
Section 2
(1.2.1) Roleplay shall also be held in Discord, given that the Rules made by the Minister of Roleplay and relevant RP laws has jurisdiction in Discord and that all members in the Server are to follow such Rules. The Moderation Team shall have the power to enforce all Roleplay Rules and keep the Peace in the Server.
(1.2.1a) Should the member in question violate the Rules of Roleplay in Discord, COR shall order for a gag order to be placed on them in RP channels, being backed by the Minister of Justice, for a maximum of 7 days.
Article 2
(2.1) The Region shall vest, in Discord, a Server and within the Server, the Server shall have, under this Act, a Moderation Team.
(2.2) The Moderation Team shall be composed of three Moderators, of which the Prime Minister shall have the power to appoint, with the advice and consent of Parliament. And of which each Moderator shall have the power to take measures to keep the peace and enforce all Rules of the Server. This actions can be:
(2.2a) Issuing gag orders if the Nation has determined to have said disruptive or disturbing statements that otherwise would cause mental harm to other Nations and otherwise has refuted or rejected the warnings of the Moderators
(2.2b) Suspending the Nation from any or all channels appropriate if the Nation has released any pictures, videos, or links that proved to be disturbing to the majority of Nations and as such has rejected the warnings to take it down.
(2.2c) Banning the Nation from the Server if their actions has been continuously and extraordinarily detrimental to the Region, has been punished 3 or more times, or has caused extraordinary damage to the Region, in which one of such Instances could be the actions of one Nation being a cause to the decrease of the population.
(2.3) The Moderation Team shall, if a,b,or c of Clause 2 of this section has been satisfied or if the Moderation Team has found the Nation doing an similar offense, prosecute the Nation and bringing them to the LDA Supreme Court. The Minister of Justice shall serve as their attorney unless specified by the Moderation Team.
(2.4) The Moderation Team may also resolve any disputes in Discord, unless one of the parties includes the Moderation Team or a Moderator, in which the Supreme Court may intervene.
(2.5) A Moderator may only be removed if a Discord member and two other members, being Members of Parliament,initiate a vote of no confidence against the Moderator.
Refer to my quote for the answers. But why do you want to close the embassy?
Advertisement
