| [LEGAL QUESTION] Citizenship and The Bill of Rights |
|
Your honours,
It is the belief of the plaintiff that a clear contradiction within The Charter exists in regards to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 7 (A1.S2.C7) and Article 2, Clause 5 (A2.C5). As such the plaintiff calls upon the High Court to reconcile this contradiction by striking from the law A1.S2.C5 in line with the general principle of the primacy of the Bill of Rights. A2.C5 states the following; "The right to equality and the freedom from the denial of participation based on arbitrary or discriminative criteria." It is the belief of the plaintiff that the open ended and undefined nature of A1.S2.C7, which neither provides a definition of "security threat" nor identifies the procedure by which a nation is to be "found to be" one, meets this definition. The OED definition of arbitrary is as follows; "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". This can be broken into three sections; 1. Random choice 2. Personal whim 3. Lack of reason or system A1.S2.C7 must be considered arbitrary according to all three of these sections. Due to the lack of a definition of "security threat" and the lack of an identified procedure for nations to be "found to be one" such process is subject to both random choice and personal whim. Further, the lack of an identified procedure is a clear example of a lack of system. A1.S2.C7 allows the Cabinet to declare any citizen to be a security threat at any time, for any reason, and as such is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights' protection against arbitrary or discriminative denial of participation, and as such must be struck from the law, and all existing uses of this unconstitutional provision overturned. As such, and following from the above argument, the plaintiff submits the following legal 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? Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
How can a clause of the Charter be... unconstitutional? Isn't the constitution by definition... constitutional?
Furthermore, a citizen cannot be removed for 'any reason' - they must first be deemed by a majority of a body of TSP's elected executive to be a security threat. That's no small feat, in and of itself - you're the only bloke who's managed it so far. It's also not arbitrary; it's very much particularized - you have to be singled out as a security threat - and it very logically follows that there is an interest in keeping the region safe from security threats and this may involve barring someone from citizenship. 'Arbitrary or discriminative' criteria refers to cases where there is no present logical and particular connection between the means and the end, or in this case, the denial of participation. Like denying citizenships to nations because they're socialist nations, or WA Members - where you deny participation for players in the South Pacific because you've attributed them to an unfair generalisation.
The Court has decided to hear this question. Any interested parties may submit an amicus brief on the matter.
I would like to submit an amicus brief on this matter.
Beginning with our charter, in which it is specified: "We the nations of the Coalition of The South Pacific, hereby establish this Charter in order to preserve and protect the freedom, prosperity, security, and well being of our region as a whole and its individual states. Article 1, Section 2, Point 7 of the Charter furthermore clarifies that the Cabinet is give the power to ensure the security of the Coalition of the South Pacific. "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." This power is clearly kept in check through a the possibility of an appeal to the Assembly. Considering that during the recent general election we had 48-50 voters participating out of our approximately 74 citizens who are eligible to vote, this threshold can easily be passed if enough of the citizenry wish to do so. In this particular case, the Cabinet - to ensure the "security, and well being of our region" - declared Belschaft a security threat. He appealed and the Assembly, which makes up the active voting citizenry of the region, chose to uphold it. The Cabinet is given the ability to take a measure that secures our region. The dictionary defines, secure as "measures taken to guard against espionage or sabotage, crime, attack, or escape. " In addition, it defines security as: "1. the quality or state of being secure a. freedom from danger b. freedom from fear or anxiety" Furthermore, threat is defined as: ":a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do : someone or something that could cause, trouble, harm, etc. : the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen" In finishing, I hope the court will support the Charter and the Coalition and "preserve and protect the freedom, prosperity, security, and well being of our region as a whole and its individual states." Thank you for your time. 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'll be submitting a full amicus brief to support my preliminary argument at some point in the next few days, probably tomorrow.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Considering that the petitioner of the legal question is in fact the writer and first and foremost proponent of the particular clause, I would like to ask that the petitioner outline with what intent they thought of, drafted, and proposed the particular clause in question.
This question is relevant in this and other cases. 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
HCLQ1512
- 24.05.15 -
Petitioner
Belschaft
Presiding Justices
Hileville, TAC, Apad
Non-Presiding Justice
N/A - Pending Special Election
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.
This Legal Question has exceeded the time allotted for appeals. As such, this thread will be locked.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |