HCLQ1512
- 24.05.15 -
Petitioner
Belschaft
Presiding Justices
Hileville, TAC, Apad
Non-Presiding Justice
N/A
Question: Does Article One, Section Two, Clause Seven of the Charter contradict Article Two, Clause Five of the Charter and, if so, are all uses of the provisions within A1.S2.C7 unconstitutional?
Majority Opinion
Hileville, TAC, Apad
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 7 establishes procedures for the Cabinet to remove ones Citizenship on Security Grounds:
Quote:7. Citizenship may be removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet if a nation is found to be a security threat. Citizens removed for being a security threat may appeal to the Assembly which may reverse the removal by a 75% majority vote in favor.
Article 2, Clause 5 gives the right to not be denied participation for arbitrary reasons:
Quote:5. The right to equality and the freedom from the denial of participation based on arbitrary or discriminative criteria.
A1.S2.C7 allows the Cabinet the ability to remove Citizenship from someone found to be a security threat. The Court took into consideration the text of A2.C5 of the Charter which disallows the denial of participation based on arbitrary or discriminative criteria. The Court had to determine if declaring a nation a security threat and stripping their Citizenship was arbitrary or discriminative.
It is the belief of the Court that A1.S2.C7 reasonably limits the Cabinet's ability to remove Citizenship. It is also the belief of the Court that removing Citizenship based on the grounds of being a security threat is neither arbitrary or discriminative. The Court believes that the Cabinet has acted within their power and did not violate any section of the Charter based on the above criteria. A specific declaration can be unconstitutional if the reasons cannot be justified, but the act itself does not contradict The Bill of Rights.
Revised Draft
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain