Discussion: Oaths Act

[Gulliver]

You may have already noticed this thread in the Senate, regarding my recent finding on the citizens provision of the Oaths Act. Gallipoli-China and Eluvatar have already stated their opinions, but our other Senator Wast has not said anything, and I think this question merits at least some informal intraparty discussion. So, what does everyone else think about this question?

[Eluvatar]

I don't have a strong opinion but I am leaning toward the opinion that Citizens need not swear a loyalty oath.

[Gulliver]

As you just noted, the Delegate is allowed to reject applications for any reason, but then again, those rejections can be overridden, so I think my ruling is still sound >_>

That said, I don't particularly feel like amending the constitution over this. I would hope people can be brought up on criminal charges without having to explicitly agree to the law.

[Zimmerwald]

...You can rule explicitly that people can be brought up, and convicted, on criminal charges without having to explicitly agree to follow the law.  I agree that amending a statute to be in line with the Constitution is usually preferable than amending the Constitution to be in line with a statute.  Among other things, it's easier, and more importantly the Constitution is (in theory) built on principles while statutes are (in theory) meant to expedite and regulate.