| Legal Question - When is citizenship lost? |
|
I'm willing to hear this case.
At this point I'm inclined to argue that citizenship is lost when any citizen fails to meet the two post requirements during any 30-day period, not at the arbitrary review and discretion of the admins. The failure to perform their duties properly does not excuse it. If we rule that way I'd like it to be applied retroactively as well, using our citizenship removal clause if necessary.
I'm willing to hear the question. I think it raises an important point that needs clarifying.
I'm not sure that I could ever support retroactive removal of citizenship though.
Making it retroactive could well cause issues, agreed. I can see someone pointing out "X person should have lost citizenship for a 1 day period 3 years ago, meaning their vote is now invalid as they should no longer be a citizen". I think even I probably didn't meet the current citizenship requirements if you go back far enough (i.e. years), yet never lost citizenship at the time. I wouldn't be the only one.
Up to you what you decide though.
I'm inclined to invoke the following clause just to resolve this debacle about the elections and all
"5. The High Court holds the sole power to remove citizenship outside of regular legislation that outlines reasonable upkeep requirements or security imperatives."
I think perhaps we should say we'll hear it, give 72 hours for any final amicus briefs and then make a ruling?
At this point I'm inclined to the view that citizenship is valid until it is removed so even if you lapse during that period you are still a citizen until the Act of removal takes place. However, I need to do some more reading on this.
I concur with Hop
Just to include my opinion on this:
Theoretically, I’d agree that the 30-day period rule should apply to any 30-day period. But realistically speaking, we cannot expect admins to be all-seeing and all-knowing, such that they’ll instantly know when someone’s citizenship should have lapsed. Bearing in mind this possibility of human error, we can only ask that the admin team perhaps conduct checks more regularly, on a timeframe that has a consensus between them and the Cabinet. Thus, yes, citizenship is linked to admin review. It would seem rather unfair to retroactively remove citizenship, especially when someone makes an effort to return thereafter. However, my baseline is that irrespective of the activity levels requirement, the 'nation in TSP' requirement should still apply. Also, on the matter of Railana's citizenship, I say that the as a result of this ruling, the Courts declare Railana's citizenship to be intact at the time of the March election, as a result of the administrative team not performing citizenship checks prior to the elections. Hence, a tie will result, and a revote should be called for.
Since the two of you seem to agree and I'm neutral at this point, can someone draft a statement? I would but I'm not entirely convinced I support it.
I can't find the decision template but I'd suggest an answer on the following lines:
Lifted the format from one of Awe's posts. HCLQxxxx
- 08.04.15 -
Petitioner
Sandaoguo
Presiding Justices
Awe, Farengeto & Hopolis
Non-Presiding Justice
Apad
Question: Is citizenship lost due to the activity requirements set out in Article 1, Section 2.8, immediately when the requirements are not met, or only when an activity check is conducted and it is noticed that the requirements are not met? Majority Opinion
Awe, Hopolis
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 8 as set out below makes provision for the conditions under which citizenship will be removed due to inactivity: 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. It is the view of the Court that the phrase 'will be removed' does not make provision for the automatic removal of citizenship. On this basis in the absence of any provisions for the automatic removal of citizenship in the Charter a nation remains a citizen until the manual act of the removal of citizenship takes place. 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 office and voting in elections. Furthermore, it is the view of the Court that the Charter makes no provision for the retrospective removal of citizenship. The Court is aware that this question has practical applications in respect of the recent and current elections and on the basis of this ruling we would state that the votes of any nations that were/are still present in TSP but had/have not undergone the process of citizenship removal due to inactivity at the time of voting should be counted as valid votes. However, this question raises some important points that require consideration by the Assembly. Not least, the Charter makes no explicit reference to who should be empowered to remove citizenship should a nation fail to meet the provisions of Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 8 or how often such citizenship checks should take place. On this basis, in addition to this ruling the Court urges the Assembly to debate this matter as a matter of urgency for the purpose of providing legislative clarity for future elections. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |