I initially thought that myself (and when I originally stuck them there in my draft, I also had no better place to put them. But, if Article III is read as a whole, defining the rights that members have comes first (Section 1), then Section 6 defines who is a member (and thus entitled to those rights). Perhaps merging the two relevant sections into one will assist with it, but as a whole, I think it is fine.
Similarly, Section 4 references citizens (or rather something only citizens can do), while Section 7 deals with how citizenship can be obtained. Potentially merging these two sections and clearly saying that citizens have the right to stand for and vote in elections would remedy this.
I think we should stick to one measurement of activity for tracking legislator status. It makes it simple and predictable, but I could also envision a Court case the first time we have four votes, and someone made two of them.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Legislator Act. You have an extra hanging “R” there.
Other than these things, I remain satisfied with the proposal.
I agree the language of this section is somewhat less than precise. Let me try to clarify it now. On the substance of having multiple requirements, I will have to respond tomorrow. But I will at least try to make those multiple requirements comprehensible right away.
I imagine that, now that we will probably have fewer Legislators, since it will only go into the real specific issues in the position (which does not currently happen), the Committee becomes “useless”, in the sense that there would be too many people for a service that would reduce considerably and which can be done by the Chair of the Assembly and your Deputies.
Well it isn’t really being removed, just renamed. The current Legislator Committee will become the new Citizenship Committee. It will perform essentially the same function in reviewing / granting citizenship applications that the LegCom does now with respect to legislator applications. And since only citizens can become members of the Assembly under the proposal, every member of the Assembly will have passed a LegCom type check before doing so.
This is just an offhand comment and nothing more, but I always wondered about how this clause would work in practice, or how “disruptive” means in the context of a browser game that wouldn’t cross into OOC moderation.
Rescind, or nullify? Also, if the CRS has to do this, what is the legality of the actions of the emergency member?
(5) The Citizenship Committee may conduct additional security checks on citizens at the request of other government officials.
This implies that my time as an elected member of Spiritus’s Legislature would need to go into a citizenship application, despite it happening for a single term almost 9 years ago. Is there a better way to phrase the latter half of this clause to reflect a more reasonable/appropriate legal requirement?
Still think this can go.
No longer meets the requirements for citizenship, provided that no unlawful expulsion from the region may be used to support a conclusion of failure to meet the requirements; or
That was from my draft that they integrated into theirs.
My thought process was that the chair would otherwise have sole discretion over Assembly membership. While an application to the Assembly would largely just be a formality, the Chair could in theory reject any application they choose. This provision simply provides a small check that can be used if necessary.
Just a ceremony, I don’t think it should end or be removed from the proposal. Even if it doesn’t necessarily mean something, I imagine it’s nice to have that and it gives the whole process something more “exciting”.
As a general matter I agree. But I also take HS’s point that if we require attendance at 2/3 of all votes only if there are three votes, there will be a fair number of months in which there is effectively no requirement at all because the Assembly hasn’t taken three votes. As a result, this provision provision that was designed to raise the voting requirement would frequently have the opposite effect.
I have reworded the requirements now in a way that I think is more clear and avoids some of the concerns about confusion and predictability. But let me know if you disagree.
Fully agree with Griffindor’s explanation below. To be sure, LegCom / CitCom has similar authority without an option of appealing to the Assembly, but those bodies are committees which creates internal checks on potential abuse of power by one member. Since the current proposal entrusts approval of legislator applications to the Chair alone, it seems that we should have some external check on that unilateral authority.
That’s a challenging legal question. Given that an identical provision already exists in the Legislator Committee Act, it might be worth obtaining the opinion of the High Court on its meaning. We could, of course, try to clarify it here via legislation, but it strikes me that this might start to broach broader questions of regional security protocols that are better taken up separately and in different fora.
In the meantime though, I’m curious if this provision has ever been utilized by the CRS? If so, to what result vis-a-vis the actions of the emergency member?
Fully agree–will implement now.
When you put it that way, it does sound overly onerous. But the provision was designed to align more or less with the alias disclosure requirement. Legislator applications currently require disclosing any alias “in prominent use longer than a year ago.” I would assume that an alias would be considered “in prominent use” if it were used to serve in a governmental position, though of course that is ultimately a question of legal interpretation. Maybe it would make more sense if the two requirements were more directly tied together. For example, the regional disclosure requirement might be something like “a list of regions in which the member used any aliases disclosed pursuant to the requirements of this section.” Thoughts?
I agree with Silvae here. It is purely ceremonial, but so are real life citizenship oaths. Of course, the real life effect of those oaths is much greater, but they are equally unnecessary as a practical matter; one could simply be sent a passport recognizing one’s new citizenship. Perhaps I am a sap, but I like the added bit of ceremony.
I agree that’s cleaner, but I limited to Art. 2, Sec. 2 to avoid the concern HS raised about the proposal implicitly authorizing the CRS to revoke citizenship without going through the proscription process. The referenced provision contains only the continuous citizenship requirements, thus excluding the initial citizenship requirement that the member not be considered a significant risk to regional security by the CRS.
Sorry, just realized I missed this comment in my last reply. I personally would agree with incorporating these changes, but I wonder if it would be better to take up a wholesale revision of the Elections Act and include them there?
I have been waiting for this to get settled so that a redraft of the Elections Act could take place. The edits to the Elections Act within this omnibus (in my opinion) serve to keep the law afloat until a redraft can take place.
The wording of section 2 seems to imply that being a member requires having a WA nation. If it’s not an inconvenience, could you add something small like “(if applicable)” … or don’t
I also presume that any current legislators will be granted citizenship if this passes. And while we’re on that topic, will Assembly applications be paused until we update the application system, or how is that going to work?
Other than than that, I see no problem with this ammendment and, to be honest, it passing would probably make my life easier.
Just a small rewrite, including what was requested by Legend:
the current World Assembly nation of the individual, should one exist.(iIn case of a floating World Assembly membership, the applicant may list multiple nations such that World Assembly membership can be traced throughout the application process); and
I prefer “, should one exist” so we are not referring to people themselves when we refer to their nation. I also, as a matter of opinion, dislike parenthesis within legislation, which is why I think the latter change that Silvae offered on floating WA is good (takes away the parenthesis in the legislation )