BY UNANIMOUS ASSENT
Supreme Court of Taijitu Decision 1
"The Removal of Dren Egral A's Citizenship"
On the ninth of April, at 04:53 Pacific Standard Time, the nation of "Dren Egral A" (inverse of "A large nerd") entered Taijitu. Later that day, between 08:02 and 10:39 Pacific Standard Time, they departed for a region of their own making. Within 31 hours they had attained over 40 endorsements in Taijitu by endorsing every single UN member in the region. The Executive Government was appropriately shaken by these developments and discussions began of how to respond. It was being discussed by the Ministers whether or not to give Citizenship to Dren Egral A, who had at that point applied. While this discussion was ongoing, the Minister of Internal Affairs granted Citizenship. The other Ministers and the Delegate being displeased, he then decided to revoke it. At that time the Speaker and Minister of Community became irate and both prodded the Court into action and began proceedings for the Minister of Internal Affairs's Impeachment.
Article VI, Section 2 clause 2 of the Constitution of Taijitu states that "Citizenship may not be revoked without the due process of law." Now it does provide for temporary restrictions on Citizens during investigations, but the outright revocation of citizenship is unconstitutional. As Remedy, the Court requires that Citizenship be restored to DrenEgralA post haste, and instructs that the Minister of Internal Affairs avoid repeating this mistake. We do not however believe this honest mistake justifies impeachment, especially when it is so easily reversible. We advise the Senate to allow the Delegate to continue to deal with the Ministry of Internal Affairs as she sees fit.
Finally, the Court affirms that it would have been Constitutional for the Minister of Internal Affairs to refuse Citizenship to DrenEgralA, but once said citizenship was issued DrenEgralA gained constitutional rights to keep their Citizenship. The Ministry of Internal Affairs does not need to be a rubber stamp of Citizenship and the aggressive collection of endorsements and other security factors would be legitimate reasons to give additional scrutiny, and possibly refusal to an application.