View Topic

This came about from a discussion with Chanku where we disagreed on the ability of the Storting to revoke someone's Citizenship...I felt that the Storting had the authority to revoke a member's Citizenship with a majority vote of both chambers, but Chanku felt that it did not because it had already delegated that authority to the Monarch. While I'm glad to have the authority, I feel that it should be used in emergency cases only due tomy belief that the Storting should have primary non-emergency authority over all aspects of Citizenship.

We then ran into issues with the question of who would someone appeal to if they had their Citizenship revoked like that, as they are guaranteed to be able to do in the Declaration of Rights.

This is my attempt to resolve these issues. I'm not sure if this clarification is needed or wanted, but I wanted to offer it to the next session of the Storting if they want to take it up.

The Citizenship Revocation Clarification Act

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as the Citizenship Revocation Clarification Act.

Amendments to The Citizenship and Demonym Act
2) Article 2.2 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act shall be amended as follows:

2.2 The Monarch shall have 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 Persons whose Citizenship has been revoked by the Monarch may appeal the decision to the Storting, which can restore Citizenship by a majority vote of both chambers.

3) Section 2.3 shall be added as follows:

2.3 The Storting shall have 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 Persons whose Citizenship has been revoked by the Storting may appeal the decision to the Monarch, who can restore Citizenship by decree.

4) The existing Section 2.3 and 2.4 shall be renumbered as appropriate.

This Act also closes a loophole where a public declaration had to be made when Citizenship was revoked, but it did not necessarily have to explain the reasons that the action was taken.

So have at it...or not.

Now that we have an Underhusen, I just wanted to point out that this was still a thing maybe.

Ahem.

I know I presented this as a take it or leave it thing, but I wouldn't mind at least getting a reply back if the Underhusen isn't interested in introducing it.

Ahem.

I know I presented this as a take it or leave it thing, but I wouldn't mind at least getting a reply back if the Underhusen isn't interested in introducing it.

Personally  will go against this. I agree 2.2 but I dont like 2.3
I believe that, by giving to the Storting the power to denny a Royal Order directed by the Monarch, you are changing our political orientation. And I do like Wintreaths Monarchy

That's a first.

Technically, the authority to revoke Citizenship is an authority of the Storting already that it has specifically delegated to the Monarch in the Citizenship and Demonym Act. This Act clarifies that the authority is shared as I already believe it is (but Chanku does not). Additionally, Article V Section 2 of the Fundamental Laws grants Citizens the specific right to appeal any decision to revoke their Citizenship. That means that the ability to overrule a Citizenship revocation is Constitutionally mandated.

I don't see any necessity for this; if the UH can delegate a power, it means that the UH already has that power. Common sense.

That is my interpretation as well. However, seeing that there's disagreement it wouldn't hurt to explicitly state it and there really does need to be a legal appeals process in line with the Constitutional right to appeal a revocation of Citizenship. Right now it's not clear who someone would appeal to.

So...since we have active Underhusen candidates, anyone want to give this a comment? Could it be that the second session is the charm for getting this introduced?

Well, it's clarifying some discrepancies and making it more clear, and looking at it I don't really see an issue with it.  It may be considered a common sense thing to some as Josh pointed out...but I still see this as somewhat a necessity and starting process to ironing out any loopholes in our system.

I don't see a reason why this shouldn't be introduced.

If I understand this correctly now, basically it's saying that if the Monarch revokes someone's citizenship, the chambers of the Storting can appeal for the person, and if the Storting revokes someone's citizenship by majority vote, the monarch can appeal it?

That feels a bit... I can't really think of a better word than "broken."

It may be that my education of mainly the Roman-Dutch-Influenced-By-English legal system makes me favour a Supreme Court of Appeals type of setup where only one judge who is chosen by the Storting and the Monarch together gets to decide on appeals, by analysing new and unanticipated situations and delivering a judgment on whether he/she'll allow the citizenship to be restored, thereby setting up precedence, or look at existing laws to determine whether the Storting/Monarch was fair and legally justified in its decision to revoke citizenship or not. If this makes someone feel uncomfortable, then a jury can be convened, but I don't favour that approach.

So to clarify what I'm suggesting in short. Appoint a judge who deals exclusively with appeals like these. That means he only has power when someone appeals to get their citizenship back, and there is one person and one person only who everyone can go to, which just feels like a less wonky system. As said, "judge" can be replaced by "jury" too, but I doubt we want to create a completely new chamber in addition to the two already present in the Storting.

Of course, this is assuming that oft-mentioned system of precedence comes into effect as suggested by the current campaigners for the UH.

If my idea doesn't seem like a good one, I lean a bit to the monarch having the final say, but I just think an elected judge would be a bit less dodgy. Again, I understand that this isn't a major issue either way, and that we aren't trying to overhaul the system completely, but I just thought it worth a mention.

Laurentus, does that mean you are against The Citizenship and Demonym Act in general since this is just an amendment to clarify terms?

What this does is clarify who the appeal goes to when a citizen looses their citizenship depending on who revoked it. If it's the Storting that revoked it it goes to the Monarch, if it's the monarch the appeal is handled by the Storting.

Laurentus, does that mean you are against The Citizenship and Demonym Act in general since this is just an amendment to clarify terms?

What this does is clarify who the appeal goes to when a citizen looses their citizenship depending on who revoked it. If it's the Storting that revoked it it goes to the Monarch, if it's the monarch the appeal is handled by the Storting.

I'm suggesting I have a bit of a problem with this type of appeal in general, but also recognising that my proposal for an alternative could shake things up a bit, although I don't think it would change things that much as far as extra work is concerned.

If I'm elected into the Underhusen, I might even take it upon myself to draft a simple SCoA (Supreme Court of Appeals) act where any appeal of decisions passed (any decisions) could be laid down to set up precedent, or verify the legality of the decisions that have been passed based on standing precedent or legislation already in place.

This would be why such a judge would need to be elected by both the Storting and the Monarch and his Jarls. Or, if no one objects, just appointed by the Monarch himself, and possibly be named some sort of Jarl too.

So yes, I'm suggesting that this act be changed quite a bit, along with numerous other acts that I may not be aware of, and unified under a single Act of Appeals, or something similar.

I know this can be very controversial.

I maintain my view that court systems are inactive disasters in NationStates, especially when they're present as one Supreme Court branch. I've already posted the reasons why many times.

For example, in the year and a half Wintreath has existed, nobody has ever had their Citizenship stripped of any reason other than their moving out of the region, renouncing Citizenship, or having their nation deleted for inactivity. We're really just looking at a what-if scenario, but an important what-if, nonetheless.