View Topic

Title
1. This act is to be cited as the Citizenship and Demonym Shall Eradication Act

Amendments
2. Section 1, Subsection 1 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is amended to read as follows:

This act shall be cited as the Citizenship and Demonym Act.

3. Section 2, Subsection 3 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is amended to read as follows:

The Monarch has the authority to revoke Citizenship from any person, so long as the Monarch makes a public announcement explaining the reasons for doing so. Persons whose Citizenship has been revoked by the Monarch may appeal the decision to the Storting, which can restore Citizenship by a majority vote of both chambers.

4. Section 2, Subsection 4 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is amended to read as follows:

The Storting has the authority to revoke Citizenship from any person with a majority vote of both chambers, so long as the legislation revoking the Citizenship contains the reasons for doing so. Persons whose Citizenship has been revoked by the Storting may appeal the decision to the Monarch, who can restore Citizenship by decree.

5. Section 2, Subsection 5 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is amended to read as follows:

The Monarch of Wintreath has the authority to declare any person as persona non grata. Any person declared persona non grata will be denied citizenship, ambassadorship, or any other privileges by the government of Wintreath.

6. Section 2, Subsection 6 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is amended to read as follows:

The Monarch, or any subordinate official appointed by the Monarch, has the authority to grant or deny citizenship to any person who applies.

7. Section 3, Subsection 1 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is amended to read as follows:

The Storting has the authority to recognize any previous or current Citizen as a Paragon of Wintreath if it feels the individual has been
an essential member of the regional community, has performed an invaluable service to the region, and/or otherwise embodies the principles, values, culture, or honour of the region.

8. Section 3, Subsection 2 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is amended to read as follows:

Paragons are exempt from the requirements of Section 2 of this Act and shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of Citizenship.

9. Section 3, Subsection 3 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is amended to read as follows:

The Storting has the authority to revoke recognition of Paragon status.

10. Section 4, Subsection 1 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is amended to read as follows:

The official demonym of Wintreath is Wintrean.

11. Section 5, Subsection 1 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act is amended to read as follows:

Upon passage of the legislation, and in accordance with Decree 001: Section 6, Decree 001 is considered Void.

I introduce this act into the Underhusen, y'all know the drill by now.

@Wuufu
@Wintermoot
@Aragonn
@Cinciri
@trader

For the Overhusen's convenience.

Could @Chanku explain specifically what the issue is with shall in the legal sense?

@taulover I don’t know if this is a legal sense, but I consider “shall” to be a word used when someone “should and will” do something. It’s different from something one “can” do but isn’t required.

Could @Chanku explain specifically what the issue is with shall in the legal sense?

I've mentioned this before, but shall itself has many different meanings, which in a legal sense all are slightly different. As such the use of 'shall' is sometimes used to mean something mandatory or something non-mandatory ("must" vs "can"/"may"). Lawsuits over the meaning of the word "shall" in a contract or law also occur with some frequency. As such it's better to avoid the use of 'shall', especially in legal documents. In Wintreath "shall" is used both in a "must" way and in a "can"/"may" way for example:

2.6 The Monarch, or any subordinate official appointed by the Monarch, shall have the authority to grant or deny citizenship to any person who applies.

The use of "shall" in this section clearly means, "has the duty/authority to" and not "must have the authority to". Meanwhile in the Fundamental Laws there is this phrase:

7. All legislation shall be initially introduced only in the Underhusen.

"Shall" in this sentence is being used to mean, "must" however it can be read as, "may" as well, especially since "shall" is used in this way elsewhere in the document (and even the same article, such as Article I, Section 16)

16. The Storting shall have the authority to issue advisory opinions on matters of constitutionality and legality to anyone whom the Storting has determined has standing to seek an advisory opinion.

"Shall" this sentence means "may" in a way, in that it has the authority to do this.

There is even a section that uses "shall" in both of these ways, which is Article I, Section 6

6. The Monarch shall announce his or her appointments and reappointments to the Overhusen at the conclusion of elections for the Underhusen. The Monarch shall at the same time also appoint a Chairperson of the Overhusen, who shall execute the procedural rules established by the Overhusen. In the event of a vacancy, the Monarch shall have the authority to appoint a new Peer to fill the vacancy.

The first use of "shall" is more-so like the usage of "must" or "will", the next use of "shall" is similar as well, in addition to the third use. The final use however is not the same, it can say the monarch "must" fill the vacancy, but instead it reads more like the monarch CAN fill the vacancy, if they so chose, but they do have the authority to appoint one.

As such, it just becomes confusing and in Wintrean Law it's been used like in RL law, which is not that good, so "shall" has become a problematic word for legal usage, for more information you can read This Plain Language document from the US government suggesting to avoid the use of shall in legal documents

Shall is universally used in a 'will' way in all the cases above, because in the 'may' sense of the words, they are always 'shall have the authority to' - they will have the authority to do something, but may choose to or not to do those things at their discretion.
So I don't see the argument for it.

Shall is universally used in a 'will' way in all the cases above, because in the 'may' sense of the words, they are always 'shall have the authority to' - they will have the authority to do something, but may choose to or not to do those things at their discretion.
So I don't see the argument for it.

But the phrase, "Will have the authority to", brings up the question of, well WHEN will they have the authority to do so? Will obviously means that they can do the action in the future, but not when.

Additionally, I provided a link that you should probably read as it goes into more detail.