Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

News: If a neighbor is in need of revolutionary rehabilitation, report it to the Citizen-Liaision!

Author Topic: Decisions of the Court  (Read 2202 times)

Offline Eluvatar

  • Tech Monkey
  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3111
  • O_O
    • Taijitu.org
Decisions of the Court
« on: May 04, 2012, 04:18:53 AM »
If it pleases the Court, I would like to request a judicial review on Citizenship Oaths.

The Oaths Act lists a Citizenship Oath:
Quote from: Oaths Act
I, [forum name], do solemnly swear that I will at all times obey and respect the laws of Taijitu, that I will do nothing to imperil the safety and well being of the region or any of its members, and recognize that should I fail to comply to this oath that my citizenship and the immunities and privileges it entitles me to may by due process of law be forfeit.

The Constitution states:

Quote from: Constitution
   1. All persons will take an oath of office when assuming any government office.
   2. No person will be considered to hold any government office until they have taken such an oath.
   3. The content of these oaths may be determined by law.

But it also states:

Quote from: Constitution
1. Any person possessing a resident nation in the region of Taijitu and a World Assembly nation may apply for citizenship by providing the names of both nations.

The precedent in the Ministry of Internal Affairs has been to accept applications sans oath. Is this appropriate or a mistake?

If it was a mistake, is it necessary to ask all current citizens to swear the oath to retain their Citizenship?
The constitution only says that oaths are necessary for government offices, and citizenship is certainly not considered a government office, and language like:

Quote
Any citizen who has registered on the Regional Forums may run for and hold public office.

Backs this interpretation. At the same time, the constitution only requires that citizen applicants provide valid nations, and imposing extra requirements when no provision allowing for such a thing would be unconstitutional. The clause for citizens in the Oath Act, which says people must take these oaths, is therefore presently untenable. Rather than issuing a direct judicial remedy, I will give the Senate the choice of either amending the Oaths Act to remove the offending clause, or modifying the constitution to explicitly include citizens, before the next elections. If no action is taken, I will order the clause in the Oaths Act be stricken.
Ed: Italics added
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 04:07:24 PM by Eluvatar »
                                 
(click to show/hide)