1. Any mentions of "Cabinet Ministers" in Sections 10 and 11 of Article II of the Constitution shall be removed.
This feels somewhat sloppy to me? But I imagine it would mostly work out with the authority given to the archivist.
2. Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution shall read as follows:
I was under the understanding that the proper terminology in this circumstance would be "clause" but i may be mistaken.
"1. The job of the President is to act as a facilitator of the Cabinet, pass Executive Orders, nominate Senators and veto legislation deemed harmful to the Union.
This is generally written much worse than the clause it replaces, and leaves several questions open including: what does "nominate senators" and what is the scope and power of Executive Orders (i will get back to this point later)
"5. A Cabinet of Ministers shall be elected during Minister Elections, which shall occur immediately after Presidential elections using a Single-Seat Electoral System as per regional law, to fill each cabinet position.
Why are Minister Elections separate from Presidential elections? Additionally, it would be better to mirror more closely the language used in clause 2 of this article. This also leaves open a scenario in which a by-election occurs because the president resigns or is removed etc would trigger a ministerial election, even though that doesn't seem to be the intent of this section.
a). The President shall act as a facilitator and Leader of the Cabinet, and is expected to be cooperative with their Cabinet Ministers.
What does this mean? how will this be enforced? How does this interact with 1. (above)
b). Ministries defined in the Constitution are the Ministry of Defense, in charge of leadership of the UDSAF, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in charge of maintaining foreign relations, the Ministry of Culture, in charge of maintaining cultural activity and the Ministry of Census. Further Ministries may be established by law.
This is sloppily and confusingly written "ministries defined in the constitution are"? why not define them instead of this weird pseudo-tautology. This also raises some significant questions about the division of executive power, "Ministry of Census" should be "Ministry of the Census". The constitution already establishes a cabinet minister post of the Attorney General/Minister of Justice, and yet this section leaves it out, but doesn't remove the section which establishes it later in the constitution.
*Electoral Commission
I also think you still need to amend several other sections of the constitution for this section to work, including most of the ones that regard the distribution of executive power. Our current system is one which grants power to the president, who then delegates this to others. As such clause 6 would also need to be rewritten:
6. The President shall hold a variety of powers which may be delegated to their Cabinet Ministers or the Vice President. These powers include:
a). Executive Orders, directions for the implementation of laws and regulations for the business of executive governance.
b). Persona Non Grata Declarations, which shall censure non-citizens and prohibit their entry into the region.
c). Accepting, denying and processing citizenship applications.
d). These powers may be expanded upon via law.
e). These powers may be further delegated by Cabinet Ministers to their subordinates; delegated powers are inferior to their source.
As I mentioned, how would executive orders work in a system where the President has very little actual authority? Could they not issue an executive order instructing their cabinet members to do (x action) against their will? If not what do executive orders actually do in this scenario. Also, subclause c here would presumably not be given to the President and instead to the Minister of the Census.
This proposed amendment constitutes a fundamental reconstruction of the structure of the government, and thus requires thoughtful consideration and a very thorough approach to amending every part of the constitution which these changes touch (basically all of them) which this bill and your proposed revision of it both lack.