Taijitu
Forum Meta => Government of Taijitu, 2014 => Archive => Civic Center => Topic started by: Funkadelia on June 30, 2012, 09:54:38 PM
-
I propose that Article 1, Section 1, Sub-Article 5 of the Election and Referendums Act be removed.
The following is the text of the Sub-Article:
No person may stand for office in any election during which they became a citizen.
I believe that this is an unfair clause, and despite the Court's ruling, I find it unconstitutional.
-
I would like to expand upon the original post.
Section 2, sub-article 10 of the Constitution of Taijitu states:
All citizens will be guaranteed the right to participate in any election or referendum.
I feel that the Court's decision of the scope of the term "participate" was a flawed one, and that -all- citizens should be allowed to participate in elections and referendums. Participate defined rightfully as being able to both vote and run in an election/referendum.
-
The court's explanation was also fragmented at best. In some places, it affirmed the right of participation defined as voting and running for office. At other places, it seemed to contradict itself by creating inconsistencies within the constitution, where there was none. The court's decision is binding, but it's also highly political. I believe it was created so by counsel between the the delegate and the Chief Justice. It's disappointing, because the government's reasoning is flawed.
-
I can personally attest to it not being due to what you believe. I do, however, believe the Court's definition of the scope of the term "particiapte" was very flawed and restricting, and restricting in a way that it really shouldn't be.
EDIT: Also, I removed my name from the petition because I would like the Senate's response before this gets confirmed as a referendum.
-
I can personally attest to it not being due to what you believe. I do, however, believe the Court's definition of the scope of the term "particiapte" was very flawed and restricting, and restricting in a way that it really shouldn't be.
Then I shall take you at your word on the good faith of the Government's motivations in this matter. I too agree that the definition of participate that was given by the court, as flawed. It was flawed in that the constitution stipulated that participate means to encompass all forms, and that right is guaranteed. Something that th EaR Act restricts. I'm faily sure this should have been an open and shut case.
-
I guess it's to prevent ganking the election but don't we just need activity anyway? Away with this archaic restrictions, seems to me the region is working properly.
-
This has enough signatures to go to a referendum. Next thursday would be the proper time to open it, I believe.
-
Well Terran is not a citizen anymore, so i'm not sure it does.
-
Three Signatures is enough.
-
Hi, it's me again.
Here Vote: End Citizenship Deadline to Run in Elections and Referendums Act (http://forum.taijitu.org/civic-center/vote-end-citizenship-deadline-to-run-in-elections-and-referendums-act/) we're voting for the elimination of a line in Elections and Referendums Act Article 1 Section 1 stating:
5. No person may stand for office in any election during which they became a citizen.
Right. Since this is under Section 1: Nominations and Elections start with Nominations ruled by a specific calender, you could read "No person may be nominated for office in any election during which they became a citizen."
Possible Loop Holes
Does this mean?:
Nobody can accept a nomination if they're not a citizen before they are nominated? If we delete this instead of replacing, don't we create a loop hole -as in- nothing states that an office can or cannot be run by a non-citizen or foreign dignitary? Also nothing defines that when already in office one can or cannot be a non-citizen. If it can then the following conflicts might occur...
Possible Conflicts
Section 3 Results of the same document states that a tie will be broken in favor of the candidate who has held their current citizenship the longest, if it's a non-citizen, is it fair to count as 0 time?
Article 3 Section 1 of same document states all citizens will be informed of opening of office, so non-citizens won't have the same rights of information
Article 3 Section 3 is also being held for a change with referendum, in case it doesn't pass it'll grant no right of said non-citizens to vote on the election they're supposedly nominated for
Constitution Article 1 Section 2 grants rights to citizens, what about non-citizens who may be nominated for office? Also Article 4 which grants legal protection and justice to citizens. Thankfully all other articles subjects persons instead of citizens.
Possibly there's other conflicts.
The way it's written:
"Should we amend the Elections and Referendums Act to not require candidates to attain Citizenship before nominations open? (Voting closes: September 24, 2012, 03:15:30 AM) "
This is a good interpretation of what deleting that line would do, but it doesn't say candidates require to attain Citizenship after nominations open, close, or the whole election ends.
In short...
If we do delete this line:
1) I can find no line in any Taijitu law that requires a person in office to be a citizen, except for the one we're voting to delete. I'd prefer deleting the whole citizenship laws and grant same rights to all dog and nomad that pass through our region if we really want to allow non-citizens to participate, stop discriminating them and call them persons?
2) Or, If you do agree with the citizenship laws, rights and responsibilities, and you do think someone in office should be a citizen then, you need to define that exactly, either chronologically before the Oath of Office or before the Results of the election. I'd lean towards before Oath of Office.
Am I just confused ??? or blind 8) ? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that even if I'm wrong you should consider changing a few more things.
-
whu-.....what?
-
If I'm not mistaken there is a clause preventing non-citizens from running for office. The removal of this clause would not allow that. What it would do, however, is allow people who became a citizen during nominations to run, which I feel should be allowed.
-
I can't find any clause for that, only one that is not the same:
Any citizen who has registered on the Regional Forums may run for and hold public office.
Yet this is a right, not saying you HAVE to be a citizen to run for office, just that IF you are a citizen you CAN run for office.
ALSO there's nothing stating WHEN someone running for office will have to be a citizen if that's the actual intention, When will a person have to be a citizen to hold an office? If I can run for office without being a citizen, when do I have to be a citizen? If that is not defined, then I don't even have to be a citizen to hold an office...thus my previous post alluding non-citizens can run and hold office.