| Legal Questions: Who determines citizenship? |
|
The wording of the Charter, section 2 can be seen as nebulous:
"8. Citizenship will be removed if a nation has not logged into the South Pacific forums for more than 30 days and made two posts within that period." Precedence has been that only administrators have the power to remove citizenship and that we have been lax, in TSP as a whole, in removing citizenship. I have a few questions for the court: 1. Who has the power to remove citizenship? 2. Can the court clarify what is covered under "will be removed"? 3. Who or what determines citizenship? 4. If an administrator does not remove citizenship, for example this has occurred many times over the course of the last two years, when a citizen does not fulfill point 8. of the Charter, does that invalidate all elections held since then or what is the recourse? Should an investigation take place in every election to determine whether citizens were invalid or not? 5. Since citizenship has not been removed in the past by Admins or ECs during elections, can it be removed now in the current election by the EC or does that invalidate all elections which were not checked (apparently the citizenship list has not been updated since 11/2014)? I am generally confused when a matter is for the Assembly or the Courts or both so please let me know if this is the correct procedure and if not how to proceed. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
As we've had quite a few questions in a short space of time, I thought it would be worthwhile posting just to acknowledge that the question has been seen.
I await the response of the Court.
Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
We're currently awaiting a quorum of opinions on this one but should have an answer shortly.
Justices: May I ask if you will be responding the above question? And, if so, do you anticipate getting to it prior to the judicial election?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I'm still waiting for the required quorum to produce a decision on this one. I'll bump it again with the other justices.
HCLQ1510
- 09.04.15 -
Petitioner
Escade
Presiding Justices
Farengeto, Awe & Hopolis
Non-Presiding Justice
Apad
1. Who has the power to remove citizenship? 2. Can the court clarify what is covered under "will be removed"? 3. Who or what determines citizenship? 4. If an administrator does not remove citizenship, for example this has occurred many times over the course of the last two years, when a citizen does not fulfill point 8. of the Charter, does that invalidate all elections held since then or what is the recourse? Should an investigation take place in every election to determine whether citizens were invalid or not? 5. Since citizenship has not been removed in the past by Admins or ECs during elections, can it be removed now in the current election by the EC or does that invalidate all elections which were not checked (apparently the citizenship list has not been updated since 11/2014)? Majority Opinion
Awe, Hopolis
The answer to each of the five questions asked is set out below: Quote:1. Who has the power to remove citizenship? Article 2, Section 1 of the Charter concerns itself with the application and removal of citizenship. This states that the Vice-Delegate may deny an application for citizenship (Paragraph 2). However, in terms of provisions for the removal of citizenship, the only powers specifically attributed are in respect of the Cabinet in the case of a security threat, and the Court. However, given the Article refers to the powers of the Vice-Delegate primarily it would seem to the Court that the intent in the framing of the Charter was to make the Vice-Delegate responsible for all powers relating to citizenship in Article 2 except where otherwise explicitly granted to the Cabinet or Assembly. Quote:2. Can the court clarify what is covered under "will be removed"? In framing our reply the Court assumes that the questioner refers to the powers set out in Article 2, Paragraph 8 as follows: Quote: 8. Citizenship will be removed if a nation has not logged into the South Pacific forums for more than 30 days and made two posts within that period. The absence of any such qualifier such as "will automatically be removed" leads the Court to the view that this refers to the physical action of the removal of citizenship of this forum by the Vice-Delegate (or other authorised persons under the Charter), including any an all procedures related to being a citizen such as citizenship masking on the forums. Quote:3. Who or what determines citizenship? The Vice-Delegate determines citizenship in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Charter. In the event that the position of Vice-Delegate is vacant (as opposed to inactive) the Cabinet may designate a member to perform the Vice-Delegate's duties in respect of citizenship applications. The Court notes and welcomes legislation pending in the Assembly to cover the unavailability of the Vice-Delegate in circumstances where the office is not vacant. Quote:4. If an administrator does not remove citizenship, for example this has occurred many times over the course of the last two years, when a citizen does not fulfill point 8. of the Charter, does that invalidate all elections held since then or what is the recourse? Should an investigation take place in every election to determine whether citizens were invalid or not? This question raises some important points that may require further legislative clarification from the Assembly where legislative provisions are absent. However, in the view of the Court a reading of the Charter would suggest that in the absence of any provisions for the automatic removal of citizenship a nation remains a citizen until the Vice-Delegate or other authorised persons remove that citizenship. As such, all the time that a nation is shown as a citizen they may continue to exercise all the rights and privileges that are accorded by citizenship, including standing for election or voting in elections. As the Charter and Election Act make no provision for the invalidation of election results on citizenship qualification grounds, the Court is of the view that all election results where votes of nations who were citizens at the time of voting be certified by the Election Commissioners. While the Court would urge the Assembly to consider legislation on this matter, this Court has a point of principle stood by the notion of fairness and it would seem inherently unfair to invalidate elections entered into in good faith by all parties where citizenship had not been removed at the time of the election. In respect of an investigation this should be a matter for the Assembly to determine and make relevant legislative provision. In doing so, the difficult decision needs to be addressed of who would be such an investigator given the Conflict of Interests elected officials would have in the matter and who would have the right to order a re-run of an election. Quote:5. Since citizenship has not been removed in the past by Admins or ECs during elections, can it be removed now in the current election by the EC or does that invalidate all elections which were not checked (apparently the citizenship list has not been updated since 11/2014)? The Charter in Article 2 makes no reference to such powers being granted to Administrators or Election Commissioners. Indeed, as mentioned earlier given the powers for such acts seem to have been intended to be vested in the Vice-Delegate. As such the Court reiterates its view that citizenship status remains until the physical act of removal and no retrospective powers of removal exist
Thank you, I appreciate the court's response.
Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
I just want to ask for a clarification. Is this ruling saying that the VD is solely responsible for activity checks?
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |