Clarification on Restoration of Citizenship (Credits to Doc)
http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=4959.0- Should it be established that the branch of government involved in revoking a citizenship should be responsible for repealing the revocation if such a repeal is perceived to be of sound judgement?
- If not, should there be a region-wide referendum to determine whether the implicated individual should be allowed back into the Wintrean community or perhaps, even go to the extreme of equating a citizenship revocation to a persona non grata declaration?
With point 1, I technically disagree. When it comes to citizenship revocation there are two entities that can, legally, revoke and grant citizenship:
- The Storting - through the Fundamental Laws.
- The Monarch - through grant of Storting
I have an idea for the law, which I am drafting at this time, to clarify how things should work in these circumstances, along with some additional things.
Clarification on Underhusen's Veto Override Authority
http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2722.0- Is there a clause establishing the supremacy of the Fundamental Laws over the Statutory Laws when conflicts arise?
- Is it therefore legally possible for the Underhusen to unilaterally revoke citizenship without considering the Overhusen’s opinion through its override authority? If so, should something be done to correct this?
In the Fundamental Laws, no. However there is such a thing as concepts of common law, in this case the Fundamental Laws overriding lower laws is an established concept of Wintrean Law and therefore could be argued to apply. However I would support an amendment to explicitly add this into the Fundamental Laws (along with some other changes, which I am currently writing up and going over at this time)
As to the second part, legally yes. The initial desire in giving the Underhusen its override authority was to combat a situation where the Overhusen is either acting maliciously, destructively, or their veto is otherwise improper. As such the entire purpose of the override is to act as to allow for the Underhusen, the only truly elected government body/office, to act as a legislative check upon the rest of the government, in a way. So it is my firm belief that this should not be changed, further if the Underhusen abuses this authority, they can be recalled.
Clarification on Citizen’s Right to Recall
“Any Citizen which voted in the previous regular election as defined in Article 1 Section 3 shall have the right to petition for the recall of any member of the Underhusen unless there are fewer than twenty-one days left until the next regular election.”
I will ask the question I asked months before, which has become more relevant in this particular election cycle. Since the latest regular election was a walkover, does that mean all Citizens are given the right to petition?
I would argue no. There is only really one reading of this that I can feel is applicable to this situation, and that being the last regular election.
Since we didn't have elections, one can say that Regular Elections didn't occur, and as such the last regular election would be the December election. So I would say anyone that voted in that election can have the right to recall (being a pedant, the right to petition is vague in general. While it
is defined within this context, it can refer to the Right to Petition for a redress of Grievances, it can mean the right to petition for a recall, or it can mean the right to petition for a referendum).
Also I meant to respond last night, but my internet connection cut out so I was unable to actually post this reply until now.
