The O Promise Me Act

[Hooligan]

The Deputy Secretary of State and I were discussing immigration law, and decided to hop the following act, in hopes of plugging a hole that was explicitly left in the Umpteenth Immigration Reform Act for some later Cosâ to plug. Soon we can be that later Cosâ. Comments from the nation on the draft act below are now being taken, and offers of co-sponsorships from the King and any of my fellow Senators (the Cosâ being presently dissolved, leaving the Ziu currently as just we eight) will be gladly accepted.

The O Promise Me Act

WHEREAS the immigration procedure, as specified in The Umpteenth Immigration Reform Act (35RZ22, as amended), requires that a prospective citizen shall affirm "his fealty to the Royal House and his allegiance to the Kingdom by taking any Oath of Talossan Citizenship specified by law", and

WHEREAS actually having an "Oath of Talossan Citizenship specified by law" would seem to be a necessary prerequisite to any such affirmation, and

WHEREAS specifying things by law is what we do here in the Ziu, and

WHEREAS an Oath of Talossan Citizenship would be a good thing for us to specify by law, and

WHEREAS if we don't do it, no one will, and

WHEREAS we really need to get around to doing this before we forget again, now

THEREFORE be it resolved by the Ziu and thus, conveniently, be it (just like we were thinking of doing) "specified by law" that:

1. The following text shall be known as The Oath of Talossan Citizenship:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty, allegiance, and pious fidelity to the Kingdom of Talossa, to her sovereign King, and to His Majesty's government. I solemnly affirm that I will support and uphold the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa, defend the realm against all enemies, faithfully observe its laws, respect the rights and freedoms of all my fellow citizens, fulfill all my duties and obligations as a Talossan, and humbly appreciate the benefits granted unto me by my King, most especially when those benefits take the form of Talossan currency.

2. Whenever the oath shall be taken in times when the sovereign be female, appropriate changes in the wording of the oath (specifically, using the word "Queen" in place of "King", and "her" in place of "his") shall be made, in due deference to Her Majesty, whosoever she may be.

3. In accordance with law, no Royal Grant of Citizenship shall be issued to a prospective citizen until the said person has recited The Oath of Talossan Citizenship in the presence of a royal personage or member of the Royal Household, or, alternatively, has published to the nation a signed copy of this oath.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Mà Barôn Tepistà (Senator, Cézembre) (MC, RUMP)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

It seems to me that the wording should acknowledge our fealty to the nation above all as well as to the monarch, since time has shown that the nation has come before the monarch, separate and resolute. At the same time, we cannot diminish the importance of the monarch any, as an integral and vital part of the nation. Accordingly, I suggest a slight alteration:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty, allegiance, and pious fidelity to the nation of Talossa, her sovereign King, and to His Majesty's government. I solemnly affirm that I will support and uphold his Organic Law, defend his realm against all enemies, respect the rights and freedoms of his subjects, faithfully observe his laws, fulfill all my duties and obligations as a Talossan citizen, and humbly appreciate and enjoy the benefits granted unto me by my King, most especially when those benefits take the form of Talossan currency.

[Hooligan]

I agree with S:reu Davis's proposed change. We have in fact recently been through a period where there was no monarch to whom we owed our allegiance, and it was our overarching love for this nation itself that kept us together. I will make the suggested addition, and I thank S:reu Davis for it.

Hooligan

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

For historical purposes, it's worth taking a look at the citizenship oaths of Talossa's past. To quote our former king:

kri said:

REPORT TO THE PRIME MINISTER

My Right Honourable Friend,

I have retrieved for you the three "citizenship oaths" from the Talossan National Archives. Two are evidently part of the same two-stage process, dated 27/28 February 1983. The second is a citizenship application dated 15 June 1985. The 1985 text evidently is taken largely from the oath of allegiance to the USA.

Oath #1 reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby certify: That I am a fine, upstanding, moral and righteous human being, that I do not practice animal sacrifices, that I do not wear clothing intended for the opposite sex, and that I am not in any way a pervert; I also certify that in accepting Talossan honourary citizenship I accept all the duties of an honourary Talossan citizen and will, to the best of my abilities, preserve, protect and defend the King, his Kingdom, and the Constitution of the Kingdom of Talossa in accordance with the principles of the Revolution of 1979. God save the King!"

Oath #2 reads:

1. I certify that I am not mentally retarded, insane, psychopathic, sexually deviate, alcoholic, addicted to narcotics, or am a pauper, beggar, drug trafficker, convicted criminal or member of any subversive organisations seeking to undermine the authority of the King. 2. I certify that I have not entered the country by fraud, that I am not a fugitive from justice, and that I do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of Talossa."

Oath #3 (1985) reads:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign state to which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen, understanding that this does not affect my rights as a United States citizen nor citizenship in any other country; that I am of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution and the Organic Law, and personally devoted to the Monarchy, that I am not a drunkard, an adulterer, a polygamist, a violator of criminal law, a bearer of false testimony, a subversive, or an advocate of totalitarian or republican government; that I shall perform noncombatant service to the Kingdom of Talossa when required by the law; that I am not a pauper, beggar, illiterate, stowaway, prostitute, person engaged in commercial vice, or convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude; and that I sign this Declaration of Allegiance to the King and Kingdom of Talossa freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Respectfully submitted,

R. Ben Madison
National Archivist

I think most of us would agree that Lord Hooligan's proposed oath is the best one yet -- although there might be a point or two we could glean from the oaths of old. Don't we want to ensure that a prospective citizen is "not a pauper, beggar, illiterate, stowaway, prostitute, person engaged in commercial vice, or convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude"?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I am befuddled that Talossa was once deliberately opposed to the poor, uneducated, and unfortunate. Was there also an oath where S:reu Madison had citizens swear to kick puppies?

[Lord Q]

No, but he'd call you traitorous scum if you didn't.

[Tric'hard Dïeulofaçeva]

Lord Hooligan's oath while good still has one key fault that I see. I think the fact that it refers to the entire country as the kings it seems to allude to the fact that it is absolute monarchy with NO political freedom and NO senate or cosa. I do realize we elect the king, but in a sense doesn't that convey that the people are the holders of the organic law and we are just so over "loaning it" persay.

Also on another comment I am appauled at the fact that a country would deny an "illiterate"a chance at joining the state of Talossa because he does not have an education, instead it would be better to point out ignorance as an untolerable act.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

teleklos said:

Lord Hooligan's oath while good still has one key fault that I see. I think the fact that it refers to the entire country as the kings it seems to allude to the fact that it is absolute monarchy with NO political freedom and NO senate or cosa. I do realize we elect the king, but in a sense doesn't that convey that the people are the holders of the organic law and we are just so over "loaning it" persay.

But I believe the whole country is the King's... in the sense that he embodies Talossan spirit and is the sovereign ruler, not in the sense that it is his personal possession. I disagree that there is an implication of absolute monarchy; in fact, the Kingdom as a country and the government are sworn to in the same breath as the King. And the entire second sentence is about preserving individual rights and the like. I am forced to disagree with S:reu Deulofeut.

[Tric'hard Dïeulofaçeva]

I respect Mr. Davis's opinion on the matter of the king being the owner of the kingdom but I do not believe that it should be so present in the oath. In the whole there is a statement of "him" on everything. As in sentence two Lord Hooligan tries to protect individual rights but still uses the word "him". It is in this sense that say that there should be revision. The king may be ruler of the country and spirtually he embodies it but no where are the people given no credit in the matter of Talossa. As through alot of Talossan history the king may not always be there and the people have the real power. This is nowhere implied, and I propose the addition of a new sentence or the revision on the original.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The current oath revision:

"From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty, allegiance, and pious fidelity to the Kingdom of Talossa, to her sovereign King, and to His Majesty's government. I solemnly affirm that I will support and uphold his Organic Law, defend his realm against all enemies, respect the rights and freedoms of his subjects, faithfully observe his laws, fulfill all my duties and obligations as a Talossan citizen, and humbly appreciate the benefits granted unto me by my King, most especially when those benefits take the form of Talossan currency."

The use of "his" is indeed possessive, but again only in the sense that all citizens are "his" citizens... it would be fairer to say we own him than the other way around, as his life is now hostage to a large population of whimsical individuals. Were a law to be passed demanding that he swear a new version of a royal oath, or that he wear a sash on Fridays, he would be honor-bound to uphold such a law inasfar as it was reasonable. Were he to do otherwise, he would be in violation of his duties and could be censured or deposed.

The emphasis on the crown is an affirmation of the kingdom and her people, who have bled in a very hypothetical sense to keep the sanctity of the monarchy intact. A tyrannical despot was deposed[1], an impotent child-king was removed[2], and a hellacious[3] interregnum was endured, all in the name of the glory of Talossa and her crown[4]. No one could come to our country and fail to see that it is not the king who owns the people and our rights, but rather those people and rights who empower the king.

[1] Well, he would have been.
[2] Cute kid, actually.
[3] Not really.
[4] "Crown" rhymes with most of "brownie", and brownies are delicious. Thus, logically we fought for a delicious crown.

[Tric'hard Dïeulofaçeva]

I see your point on the fact that the king is in the hands of the people but even if we give ourselves to the king does that mean we are "his"? For instance, in line 2 you see "his government", now this is true only to a certain point which is strictly limited. As you pointed out we have the power to make the laws and in all reasonability our majesty must obtain to them. Thusly should we not in that sense say "we". Also again in line 3 we see "his laws" now even though the king has much force onto executing these laws is the law really his? The oath itself does not express the symbiotic relationship that the king has with the people, and we the people express ourselves through our laws and government. If this oath is currectly understood then it would have been easy for anything of the kings in the past to destroy any comment on their work. This, thankfully, has been stopped by the good judgment of the people voiced by the government. Had this istitution not been set still in the peoples hands this would not have occured. So while there are parts where "his" would be appropriate I do not believe it is what is needed in other points, which you havem ade refrence to.

Now this goes very well with your "blending" ideal that you point out in your third paragraph. What you don't seem to realize is that even though we have blended into one culture, and one people, the essential forms of each institution is still intact. In your ideal the government would be nothing more than the monarchy itself, this is not true of course. Instead the monarch acts as a spritual leader/president/monarch/a few other positions. The diffrence is what is needed to be addressed and if it is not you take away the single thing that has kept our system working the way it does. The idea of blending the kingdom and its people while keep two fundamental cores.

Finally I would like to point out that I agree that brownies are delicious in every way and your logic makes perfect sense.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

As I said, the word "his" is the possessive case, but only grammatically. It is the King's government and laws and so on in the sense that he belongs to them and they identify strongly with each other, but there is no implication of ownership.

Also as to your second paragraph, in actual point of fact I said nothing about blending... I believe you misread the word "bled", which would tend to change what you would think I was saying. I am not sure where you are going with that, either. What blended from what into what? And how does this affect upon the discussion?

We seem to come down to a primary ideological difference: I am desirous of an oath in the form it is now, which makes sure to pay tribute to the crown and its inalienable connection with every aspect of our country. You feel differently. While I respect your view, I believe that an oath for all new citizens should showcase our strong heritage and culture, and the monarchy is at the fore of that culture (if not its captain).

[Tric'hard Dïeulofaçeva]

While I also respect your opinion I believe that I am probably not the only one who has this view and that revision should be considered. Again as I tried (and aparantly failed) to identify that the king and the government, while they identify with each other at the moment, are two completely seperate institutions that are to be treated such, as the examples I explained in my previous comment. I also agree that there may be a confusion of ownership in those lines. In fact there is nothing that makes the reader, being a new citizen, obvious to the idea that it is not implicating ownership. I agree I culture and heritage is important (I'm a history fanatic) the present is just as important and so revision of some choice words in the oath should be carefully considered.

[Deleted]

Well if Oath 2 was still in place I would not be here. lol
' sexually deviate, '
hahaha. Well I never... what goes on behind the doors of any two (or more) consenting talossans in their majority is not the business of government.

[Hooligan]

In considering the matter further, and reading over the oath, I believe it would read better, and carry the same weight, if some of the "his"'s were changed to "the"'s. I have done so, and act for the comment of the nation, as I would like to get this bill Clarked for the upcoming session, if everyone seems to like it.

Hooligan