| [LEGAL QUESTION] Citizenship and The Bill of Rights |
http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-2357.html
This question was submitted by Belschaft in regards to the act of being declared a security threat and whether or not it contradicts The Bill of Rights. While I applaud the effort, I have to disagree with him. A specific declaration can be unconstitutional if the reasons cannot be justified, but the act itself does not contradict The Bill of Rights. While the term "security threat" is not defined in The Charter, there are many other terms not defined in our laws as well, yet are still legally recognized. As such, that argument is irrelevant.
I think I agree with you here. I'm not agreeing with the argument that Bel posted. I would say we hear the question and formally open it for briefs though.
I'm going to go ahead and say that Bel has had enough time to make a case here so I am going to draft a ruling.
Although I'd like him to follow through with his last statement, I agree. We've waited long enough.
I agree. More than enough time has passed.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
Ok. I'll post a draft here a little later this evening.
HCLQ1512
- 24.05.15 -
Petitioner
Belschaft
Presiding Justices
Hileville, TAC, Apad
Non-Presiding Justice
Farengeto
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. Here is my first draft. I did not check spelling or grammar here.
The actual verdict part feels a bit short but otherwise it looks fine currently.
I fixed the auto-coloring of some of the text.
I'd also like to suggest adding the following statement to the verdict, as it sums up the courts decision better: Quote:A specific declaration can be unconstitutional if the reasons cannot be justified, but the act itself does not contradict The Bill of Rights. In regards to the term "security threat", I'd like to direct your attention to Article 7.2 of The Code of Laws which defines "hostility" towards the region: Quote:For the purposes of this article, hostility shall constitute foreign regions or organizations that (1) were actively involved and complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific; (2) have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific; (3) groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; or (4) groups that have or have attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations. When an individual/group commits, attempts to commit or has a history of any of the above acts (while not necessarily aimed at TSP), they can be considered a security threat which I'd like to point out Dalimbar and other members of The Empire that were declared security threats before the idea of adding The Empire to the prohibited groups list was conceived. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |