View Topic

According to the Citizenship Act, the Storting can only hear an appeal when the revocation is from the Monarch to begin with, the technically the Storting has no current authority at all over revocations from a judicial panel.

True, however this would potentially weaken the Storting.

I'm not sure how...if anything, it's strengthening it by clarifying that it can hear appeals of revocations decided by a judicial panel and backed by the Monarch.

the potential effects it would have on the Storting's ability to even hear revocations in general.

I feel like this is going in circles.

Again, this amendment has no effect on the Citizenship Act, because it only defines the process in cases where a revocation is a sentence, a circumstance that isn't covered at all in current law. The Storting and the Monarch would both maintain the right to revoke outside of the judicial system, and they would continue to be able to hear appeals when the other branch does so.

The law doesn't exactly differentiate though Wintermoot. While the meaning can be one thing the actual application can be different. Also with something like this we should consider everything especially any unforeseen outcomes.

I believe the law would differentiate...it's stated very clearly in the proposed amendment that it's only for revocations as part of a judicial sentence, and the Citizenship Act already very clearly states that the Storting can only hear appeals for revocations that are decreed by the Monarch. It seems very clear.

You also thought that acceptance would be the same as filing...

Enough. Chanku, make a clear point or move on.

I've made my point. I believe this law will have unforeseen consequences that a future session will have to clean up. When it comes to something like this, we need to look at it closely, and attempt to make sure it isn't overly flawed in certain ways.

Give an example to illustrate.

For example, in the original draft of the Fundamental Laws the Overhusen members that were previously appointed would stay on the Overhusen indefinitely when the writer of that section failed to put in the language to allow that to occur.

-

I mean give an example of a way that this specific bill could go wrong.

Simple it could accidentally leave out an important word that could fuck up the entire appeal process.