Post #132655
October 22, 2018, 02:06:07 AM
I do not think we should have such a requirement and there are three reasons as to why: It is a violation of our separation from the Monarchy, there is no overriding interest for us including that, and it would be more inconsistent with the rest of our laws of a similar nature.
First and foremost, in Wintreath we have a strong separation between the Storting and the Monarchy, and except for granting additional powers to the Monarchy, or in situations where it is in the interests of our citizens to override such separation, the Monarchy and Storting do not interfere with the other. Even with the authorities we grant the Monarchy, we grant the Monarchy wide authority to implement and decide how to implement the powers we give them. The only cases where this would not be a violation of this, would be where overriding interests exist, and it is in the interests of our government and Citizens to do so. However with these ceremonial titles, and thus this act, I do not believe there is any overriding interests that would make such a requirement proper in this act, unlike with Citizenship.
Now there are several reasons for the requirement of a statement in the revocation of citizenship, many of which are historical or practical. First is that the first Storting delegated the authority to grant Citizenship to the Monarchy, for the purposes of expediency. As such, there was a controlling interest to grant the Monarchy the authority over revoking Citizenship applications as well, in addition to the requirement that the Monarchy regularly looks over all Citizens and revokes the citizenship of those that no longer meet the requirements for holding citizenship. However, the reason for the public statement is two fold:
1) There is a overriding interest, as losing Citizenship also means losing positions in the Government, losing the authority to vote, and losing the protections of the Wintrean Legal System. As such there is a overriding interest in such a statement
2) The initial act was a codification of Decree 001 by the Storting, with the addition of a Demonym. This was required within Decree 001.
The reason why this requirement survives to this day is because of the overriding interest, and because of the fact that a revocation is able to be appealed to the Storting directly. As such, in order to hear the appeal properly, the Storting must know the reasons for the revocation by the Monarch, in order to understand the reasoning for doing so. There is no such appeal here, therefore the requirement is useless at best.
Finally, the only other thing that is comparable to this, which is the Commendation of Wintreath, does not require any reasoning given for having it revoked within law, in-fact it grants the Monarch the authority to revoke it so long as he or she feels it proper to do so, and does not require a reason to be stated. this means that such a requirement would be more inconsistent with our current laws, that it would be without it. Even Nobility can be revoked without reason given, and that arguably grants more rights, privileges, and authorities than these titles or a commendation does.
So to conclude, such a requirement should be omitted, not only for consistency, but also to not unduly interfere with the affairs of the Monarchy, and such a requirement would be an undue influence because there is no overriding interest of the Storting in it.
Also, I will note that there is no requirement for this in the Fundamental Laws, the only section mentioning revocation of Citizenship is in Article III, which permits a final appeal to the Storting on a court case involving a loss of Citizenship.