Gotta undo the oath.

[Deleted]

And nobody got thrown out. Here, this must be repeated: NOBODY GOT THROWN OUT.

The choice was clear and Mr. Lowry decided to end his citizenship. He left on his own accord. Frankly, if the oath is necessary to become a citizen, then it would stand to reason that rescinding that oath would be equivalent to rescinding ones citizenship.

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

My personal opinion is that if someone wants to ease, liberalise and alternatise the process of oath bringing and/or citizenship granting, it should be done through legal processes, such as acts and amendments, for as Viteu has already stated, the current law is pretty clear and straightforward on that part.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Jan 14, 2013 23:57:34 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Then it is up to the Cort to decide or for a new clarifying law to be introduced and passed.

Precisely my point.

Nevertheless, the only person that can bring this case would be Mr. Lowry himself.

True, but irrelevant to the point I was making.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I do not consider S:reu Lowry to have lost his citizenship, although the SoS did have the power to end S:reu Benjamin's application for refusal to abide by the process. I urge the SoS - though I consider himi a friend - to reconsider his pronouncement about S:reu Lowry, for the following reasons:

The laws involved are the Umpteenth Immigration Act and O Promise Me Act. The former states in S7 that:

"The Secretary of State shall, on a date of his choosing, but within a period of ten days after receiving a petition to issue a Grant of Citizenship as described in clause 4, determine the provincial assignment of the prospective immigrant and issue a Royal Grant of Citizenship to the immigrant. This Grant shall be issued under the Royal Seal, either as applied by the Chancery, or, should the Majesty request, by the Sovereign under his or her own hand. If requested by the Government, the Grant may also bear the signatures of the Seneschál and/or Immigration Minister. The Royal Grant shall be promptly issued coincident with the candidate affirming his fealty to the Royal House and his allegiance to the Kingdom by taking any Oath of Talossan Citizenship specified by law. At the time this Royal Grant is issued, and from that point forward, the applicant shall be a full citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa. The fact of the issuance of this Grant shall be posted on Wittenberg by the Secretary of State, that the new citizen may be welcomed by his compatriots. Any and all objections raised to the immigration made after this Royal Grant will be moot."

The latter states in S3 that:

"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."

Further, though, the Sixteenth Covenant provides that:

"Talossan citizenship can only be lost by a citizen's voluntary renunciation of citizenship, or as punishment for a crime determined by the Uppermost Cort."

Given all this law, it seems clear to me that citizenship cannot be taken away retroactively for failures in the initial process, because "any and all objections raised to the immigration made after this Royal Grant will be moot." Anything except identity fraud of some kind (i.e. not being the actual person as represented in the Grant) does not matter. Most particularly, though, the Secretary of State absolutely does not possess the power to strip someone of their citizenship for a failure to abide by their oath. We have freedom of speech (Second Covenant) and assembly (Fifth Covenant) and you cannot lose your citizenship no matter what you say or do, unless it is an explicit disavowal of citizenship or a punishment administered by the Cort.

I hope the SoS will realize this error and change his course, now that this has been pointed out.

[Iustì Carlüs Canun]

If you're talking about Lowry, he did make an explicit pronouncement eventually.
He started this thread and said he wanted to rescind his oath, or at least that part of it which swears his allegiance to a monarch. It was pointed out that many former Republic citizens took the oath under protest, and as a result I sent him a message asking, essentially "Do you want to stay or go?" and he said "Go." This, to my mind, constitutes an explicit renunciation.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

That is not the exchange you posted.

"Do you still wish to withdraw your signature from the oath, with the knowledge that doing so will end your citizenship?
Or do you want to stay, and (as most of the Republicans did) abide by the oath under protest, while working toward effecting a change?

S:reu Iustì Canun, UrGP.
Secretar d'Estat del Regipäts Talossan."

"
Yes, withdraw it and throw me out.

Thanks,

Andy"

You lack the power to end his citizenship or "throw him out." His reply, predicated on false terms (withdrawing his oath, a rhetorical gesture, has no effect on citizenship, only on his dignity) cannot be construed as an explicit renunciation. This can be seen if it was phrased differently... if you had told him that if he did not wear a silly hat you would kick him out, and he replied in the same manner, it would likewise not be a renunciation.

[Iudas Levì Bentxamì]

But my citizenship was pulled for a failure in the initial process. I sent back an oath and a writ was issued. It was publicly posted on Wittenberg. The process was completed. Even the exchange on this thread shows that the retraction of my citizenship was retroactive.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2013 1:23:26 GMT -6 Iudas Levì Bentxamì said:

But my citizenship was pulled for a failure in the initial process. I sent back an oath and a writ was issued. It was publicly posted on Wittenberg. The process was completed. Even the exchange on this thread shows that the retraction of my citizenship was retroactive.

Bring it to the Cort. Like any other democratic country, we have a Cort that is there to answer constitutional questions and interpret the law.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

No, he is also right. I didn't see that the Grant had been issued, since the SoS has edited it out (for some reason). My apologies, S:reu Benjamin: I also consider you still a citizen.

V, I am sure that Iusti will reconsider after this and realize he was mistaken. If he does not, I will help them in Cort, you can be sure.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2013 1:27:09 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

No, he is also right. I didn't see that the Grant had been issued, since the SoS has edited it out (for some reason). My apologies, S:reu Benjamin: I also consider you still a citizen.

V, I am sure that Iusti will reconsider after this and realize he was mistaken. If he does not, I will help them in Cort, you can be sure.

S:reu Davinescu,

I have read what you wrote and do not agree with it. I want it to go to the Cort so the matter can be settled in the most democratic means. Furthermore, if S:reu Benjamin's citizenship is restored, I will go to the Cort and see if Article XVIII, Section 5 would be grounds for revocation of citizenship.

I find returning an oath, that is necessary for a grant of citizenship, edited to be dishonest and therefore would fall under the aforementioned section.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The SoS is not the Cort. He cannot do what he has done. If you wanted to try to expel them from Talossa, then you would have to appeal to the Attorney General to prosecute them under that clause.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2013 1:36:47 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

The SoS is not the Cort. He cannot do what he has done. If you wanted to try to expel them from Talossa, then you would have to appeal to the Attorney General to prosecute them under that clause.

Like I said, I want this to go to the Cort so it can be settled. But if the SOS does change his mind, I'll appeal to the proper channels.

This could also be settled if Mr. Benjamin simply sends in the proper oath.

[Deleted]

Also, 37RZ3, Section 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."

So a royal grant *could not* have been issued as he did not recite the Oath as specified in section 1.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

He already was granted his citizenship. They both were. The SoS cannot decide to take away anyone's citizenship because he is unhappy with something they said, even if they are saying that they take back the oath they swore. He does not have that power under law.

[ián txáglh]

now that's something really going on!

anyway, the oath text has to be updated, cos more clashes like that will appear as people may be not really familiar the feudal sound of pious fidelity and suchs. you may say, that it was your choice to come here and ask for permission to join and you have to know that this is the part of being here, but take it as this: i am prepared to say the honest truth at the court, but i would not be able to swear it on bible or any book or artefact like this even if it would be a legal prescription - well yes, i could do it physically, but it would be the first lie cos in this particular example, those books or artefacts are no authorities for me whatsoever, just the law.

i acknowledge the legal role of king in talossa, but that is why we have the court to decide if i do not in a case. oaths are medieval relics, in democracy, the law obliges. that is where i stand as peculiarist and talossan.