Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on May 22, 2010 14:47:12 GMT -6
The Anti-Un-Renunciation Amendment WHEREAS a Talossan citizen who renounces his or her citizenship currently has 24 hours after the said renunciation is acknowledged by the Secretary of State before the citizenship is officially lost, and WHEREAS this period of time has been the cause of much agony for the citizens of the Kingdom, either in panicked acts to talk the renouncing citizen out of their decision, and/or in watching the citizen change his or her mind repeatedly about such a serious step, and WHEREAS Talossan citizenship is the best thing money cannot buy, and WHEREAS to renounce such a thing is a serious matter and should be given serious consideration long before posting about it, and WHEREAS especially given legislation that will make the re-entry of former citizens less of an ordeal, providing that former citizens are always eligible to return to the Kingdom should they choose to re-apply for citizenship, now THEREFORE the Ziu hereby proposes to amend the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa by means of the following resolution, and recommends that the said amendment be ratified by referendum of the electorate and thereupon promulgated by His Majesty the King: RESOLVED, that Article XVIII, Section 9 of the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa be amended such that the sentence "It shall take effect twenty-four hours following its acknowledgement by the Secretary of State" is changed to read "It shall take immediate effect upon its acknowledgement by the Secretary of State through issuance of a Writ of Termination of Citizenship, which shall be published under the seal of the Chancery." Noi urent q'estadra sa, Baron Hooligan (MC, RUMP) Litz Cjantscheir (MC, RUMP) Mick Preston (MC, RUMP) Brad Holmes (Sen., Atatürk) Iustì Canun (Sen., Maricopa) Ieremiac'h Ventrutx (Sen., Florencia) |
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on May 22, 2010 16:22:28 GMT -6
Co-sponsor?
End this nonsense!
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on May 22, 2010 16:43:58 GMT -6
We must have the grace period to be sure the individual may reconsider.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on May 22, 2010 16:54:26 GMT -6
We must have the grace period to be sure the individual may reconsider. ... and reconsider, and reconsider, and reconsider, and reconsider ? |
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on May 22, 2010 17:30:52 GMT -6
We must have the grace period to be sure the individual may reconsider. No, we really mustn't. The grace period is the period of time the person thinks (or doesn't think as seems to be the case lately) before opening the keyboard up and quitting. Instead of relying on other citizens to talk you down from the ledge from which you intend to jump, people should seek other citizens for advice off Witt if they are considering a renunciation. As some old, smart, guy once said (in so many words): "It is better to remain silent and have people think you are a fool and a dumbass than to open your mouth, or keyboard, and prove them correct." |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2010 18:52:45 GMT -6
I know we have the precedent of permitting individuals to withdraw their renunciation. We have done it before.
But, am I crazy, or is the OrgLaw ambiguous on the matter? The OrgLaw states that the renunciation takes effect 24 hours from acknowledgment by the SoS. So to me, that means that is the SoS acknowledges the renunciation, then 24 hours later, it is official.
The reason I ask is that, if the right to withdraw a renunciation is not specifically granted by the OrgLaw, and is just a matter of common practice, one might be able to achieve the same result through a statutory law or even a PD offering clarification on the matter provided the new directive does not conflict with the OrgLaw.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iustì Carlüs Canun on May 22, 2010 20:17:58 GMT -6
We must have the grace period to be sure the individual may reconsider. Noi tiennent 'n pieriot del garp, sanc la clauça dals 24 þoras in el Legeu Orgänic. Voi remeindéu qe el Secretar d'Estat isch, par sieu propra cunceßiun, "alcuneamint lint in l'açeitarh dals renunçaziuns." We do have a grace period, even without the 24-hours clause in the OrgLaw. I remind you that the Secretary of State is, by his own admission, "notoriously slow in accepting renunciations." |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2010 21:39:18 GMT -6
I hope for the passing of this amendment. The recent treatment of citizenship as though it were a game, or a passing fancy, is too flippant an attitude for this proud citizen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2010 1:04:33 GMT -6
As someone who tried a few months ago and am now back, I will proudly support this amendment.
|
|
Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN
Puisne Justice; Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar; Cunstaval to Florencia
Dame & Former Seneschal
Posts: 1,157 
Talossan Since: 4-5-2010
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on May 23, 2010 4:32:34 GMT -6
I think that you should only post a renunciation of citizenship, if and only if you are 100% certain and nothing anyone can say or do can change your mind, that you wish to leave Talossa for whatever reason. Renunciation of citizenship is a serious decision and should be given long and serious consideration before one post their declaration on Witt.
There is a saying that says, “look before you leap”, so rather than posting one’s renunciation, one should look at all the available options before announcing their renunciation, such a talking to fellow Talossans about their problems, posting their problem on Witt where everyone can discuss and, if possible, help with the issue that is troubling you or maturely debate out one’s issue on Witt rather than threaten to renounce in order to achieve your point in a sort of my way or the highway approach. Most Talossans take their citizenship seriously and it means something to them and to see some people, who don’t really seem to care about their citizenship, use and abuse the renunciation process to attention seek or to try and bully others into accepting their point, is wholly unacceptable and should not be allowed and such people do not deserve Talossan citizenship if they treat it like a cheap commodity or a bargaining pawn. If one has a serious grievance with Talossa or any of her citizens or laws, that cannot be solved by talking with other Talossans, mature debate or lobbying the powers that be for a change and if one feels that they will no longer enjoy being a Talossan and they feel that they cannot continue as a citizen in Talossa, then I urge them to think, long and hard about it and step back from Witt for 14 days or so, and come back as see if you still feel the same way, if one does and can’t continue in Talossa, then and only then after exhausting all other options, should one post a renunciation, which is and should be, the very last thing a Talossan should consider when they have a grievance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2010 8:54:06 GMT -6
I think most of us are in agreement that such a chance would be a good idea. However, as we are all aware, amending the OrgLaw is not a simple undertaking. Assuming it passes legislative muster and then passes the referendum, we are looking at a pretty lengthy time before we ever see the new policy take effect.
I am not finding any legal requirement to allow an individual to recant during the 24 hour period.
The OrgLaw states:
Let us focus on the last sentence. There is nothing about allowing a person to recant. Moreover, the section contains pretty definite language: "It shall take effect..."
While an amendment would cement the notion, I maintain that a statutory clarification might do the trick just as well. Such a bill could propose to state that once the SoS acknowledges the renunciation, the 24-hour period is merely intended to allow the citizen to get their affairs in order (hand off legislative assignments, resign from any posts etc.) and the SoS to handle any administrative affairs. This would serve multiple purposes for us:
1. Same result but without having to go through an amendment. Thus, almost immediately the policy is in force.
2. We reinforce the idea that a renunciation will be taken seriously and that if you don't mean it, you shouldn't post it.
Look folks, I view the 24-hour period, not as a grace period, but as the same sort of thing as giving a two-weeks notice. It isn't a period during which one should be able to recant their renunciation. It is a period where we should get our "goodbyes" out of the way, work on turning over work related to an individual's post and tie up loose ends.
Please consider the possibility, not of eliminating the 24-hour period, but to clearly define its purpose so that it cannot be abused.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on May 23, 2010 10:28:05 GMT -6
I'm with Tim -
And from from now on, if and when I see a renunciation, I will acknowledge it, and the Citizen will be considered a "Former" Citizen.
No take backs.
It's my fault that this has turned into a mockery of the law. It's not going to happen again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2010 11:14:22 GMT -6
....or Mick could simply enforce the rule that way. The OrgLaw doesn't provide for "un-renouncing" so I think even if challenged legally, I think such a policy would probably hold its own. And best of all, we don't have to mess around with a referendum.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on May 23, 2010 11:57:52 GMT -6
Unfortunately, I think that sufficient precedent has been repeatedly set that anyone who unrenounces during the 24 hours after an acknowledgement can probably reasonably expect that this stops the clock, as this has always been the case.
So I think it can't hurt to be explicit about it with this minor change. Otherwise, it becomes SecState's prerogative, since history has shown that SecStates will not make a renunciation official if it is unrenounced within the 24 hour period mentioned in OrgLaw.
So while you're technically and legally correct, the manner in which the law has been applied probably has sufficient weight in any legal contest to show that the 24 hour period has always been used and available as a period for reconsideration.
Hool
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2010 12:23:26 GMT -6
That's a good point. However, a statutory law should take care of that objection, no?
Note that I'm not saying I wouldn't support an amendment. It's just that the OrgLaw related to this matter isn't flawed, it is just vague, exactly like any sort of Constitutional document should be. The purpose of the statutory law is to expand on the Organic Law within the limits set by the Organic Law.
So to recap....
1. Legally, the SoS can change policy, I would say that he can certainly change how he administers this one affair that is only governed by a rather ambiguous law. A public notice of said policy change should take the wind out of any legal objection in the future along the lines of "But we always did it this way.."
2. A simple bill could be presented to expand on the rather vague organic law as it relates to this matter which would further take care of the objections raised to Number 1
3. An amendment, while tempting because it would be rather hard to undo, is also a rather timely process that would provide no immediate remedy for a problem that, I would say, has demonstrated the need for more immediate measures. Further, we need to ask ourselves how specific we want the Organic Law to be, as I would argue that the OrgLaw is not meant to be a stand-alone source and that making the OrgLaw needlessly restrictive undermines the spirit of the statutory law and may make it very difficult to change things in the future if we see then that there is a need for further reform.
There endeth Tim's rants on the matter.
T.M.
|
|
