(03-06-2017, 10:50 PM)Escade Wrote: The only problem being for the nitpicky, they will ask the same question : Who determines so does the CRS or cabinet make a recommendation to the Chair? Or what is the process here?  The Chair can't be making unilateral decisions or have a loophole because we've had, less mature chairs.

Given that the chair already has to make these judgements when accepting, so we already have to place those expectations on them. For everything except the security threat (which is done by the CRS) there's not really any restrictions on who can raise the issue with the Chair.

Kris is also correct that from a legal standpoint we're not revoking anyone's legislator status. This EO basically says if that you fail to meet the already existing eligibility requirements you can lose it at any time. Saying it like that almost makes it sound obvious but it's not so clear in the actual law.

This isn't going to be or supposed to be a complete security law, just a reasonably logical interpretation of an existing law that would hopefully prevent the debate from shifting from Belschaft to criticizing a significant EO. Legislator removals limit the damage one can do in the short term without the personal fallout of a ban. We can later propose a proper security law that can be handled in the Assembly, again limiting the issue of the legality of enacting it. Even if an EO is technically legal, any ambiguity in its legality will easily become an issue in the Assembly.

I'm also not the best writer so my draft is more one example, if we want to pursue the idea I encourage anyone to propose their own wording.