|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jan 11, 2013 15:07:53 GMT -6
Aha.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 15:23:39 GMT -6
For some reason I feel strangely compelled to move to Germany now.
|
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jan 11, 2013 15:30:25 GMT -6
Got trapped by a reboot of my computer and then an excessive update on its Windows XP side, which I hadn't been using for months... sorry for the inconvenience.
Anyway, yes, apparently immigrants have to agree to accepting the rules that are set by the Constitution. This isn't exactly an oath of allegiance to the Federal President or some such.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 15:34:13 GMT -6
Got trapped by a reboot of my computer and then an excessive update on its Windows XP side, which I hadn't been using for months... sorry for the inconvenience. Anyway, yes, apparently immigrants have to agree to accepting the rules that are set by the Constitution. This isn't exactly an oath of allegiance to the Federal President or some such. No one claimed it was. What I said was "I am hard pressed to find a country that does not have an oath of allegiance upon becoming a citizen." |
|
|
|
Post by D. N. Vercáriâ on Jan 11, 2013 15:48:57 GMT -6
Maybe it is so, maybe it is no so. Who cares, we are Talossa and we don't have to ape the behaviour of other countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 11, 2013 15:57:00 GMT -6
I feel that the oath helps add some dignity and seriousness to the process, so I think it's a good idea, generally. However, we might want to administer it via phone when possible, to help ensure that the gravity of the matter is communicated. But I'm not married to the idea, so I dunno.
As to the terms of the oath, I'm not sure that a contract is a good metaphor, but it is instructive in one sense: when you have sworn an oath, you cannot retract it unilaterally: you can only break it or be released from it. As it is, you can break your oath without consequences, and that will probably continue to be the case. We are not going to kick you out and not going to charge you with anything for declaring that you are breaking your word and don't really swear loyalty to the country or King, and so your only prosecutor will be your conscience and reputation. You can be released from part or the whole of the obligations to which you have sworn your honor, though, if the entity/entities to whom you are sworn release you. If the Ziu passes a bill changing the oath's terms, eliminating an objectionable clause, then I think I would consider such a change to be a release from that clause.
But again, these are matters of personal integrity. It may satisfy someone to declare that they're taking back their oath, or that they're rescinding part of it, or whatever. The sanctity of a person's word may matter less to them than other things that they find unreasonable about the oath. There's no law about it, though, and there probably shouldn't be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jan 11, 2013 16:01:38 GMT -6
Got trapped by a reboot of my computer and then an excessive update on its Windows XP side, which I hadn't been using for months... sorry for the inconvenience. Anyway, yes, apparently immigrants have to agree to accepting the rules that are set by the Constitution. This isn't exactly an oath of allegiance to the Federal President or some such. No one claimed it was. What I said was "I am hard pressed to find a country that does not have an oath of allegiance upon becoming a citizen." If Sweden or any other Nordic country has, I have certainly never heard of it. If you live here for long enough, you can sign a paper and become a citizen. What more should there be to it? |
|
|
|
Post by Xandreta da Luguvaliüm on Jan 11, 2013 16:27:02 GMT -6
Details on various citizenship Oaths can be found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_citizenship. Norway's is optional. And in monarchies, it is not unusual for the oath to include the monarch as well. Though, by far, the most substantial oath is the US one. Though it was a relic of naturalizing revolutionary fighters at Valley Forge. |
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jan 12, 2013 0:59:18 GMT -6
I feel that the oath helps add some dignity and seriousness to the process, so I think it's a good idea, generally. However, we might want to administer it via phone when possible, to help ensure that the gravity of the matter is communicated. But I'm not married to the idea, so I dunno. Just to add my two cents, I think administering the oath by phone would be a great idea! Not only would it ensure the gravity of the situation, as you say, but it would also, at a basic level, be a pretty cool experience. If someone isn't reachable by phone, or international charges would be way too high for someone to be sworn in by phone, then we could obviously use a Witt PM (as per the current system) as a backup. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 6:28:46 GMT -6
I feel that the oath helps add some dignity and seriousness to the process, so I think it's a good idea, generally. However, we might want to administer it via phone when possible, to help ensure that the gravity of the matter is communicated. But I'm not married to the idea, so I dunno. Just to add my two cents, I think administering the oath by phone would be a great idea! Not only would it ensure the gravity of the situation, as you say, but it would also, at a basic level, be a pretty cool experience. If someone isn't reachable by phone, or international charges would be way too high for someone to be sworn in by phone, then we could obviously use a Witt PM (as per the current system) as a backup. Or Skype or Gtalk, I imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Jan 12, 2013 7:03:47 GMT -6
Just to add my two cents, I think administering the oath by phone would be a great idea! Not only would it ensure the gravity of the situation, as you say, but it would also, at a basic level, be a pretty cool experience. If someone isn't reachable by phone, or international charges would be way too high for someone to be sworn in by phone, then we could obviously use a Witt PM (as per the current system) as a backup. Or Skype or Gtalk, I imagine. Well yeah, I just didn't immediately think of those two things at 2:00 AM. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 7:07:01 GMT -6
Interestingly enough, it appears Britains oath doesn't mention the monarch:
I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.
Why can't we just adopt something like this? The only time, I imagine, a person would be opposed to such an oath would be if they favored fascism.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jan 12, 2013 7:34:00 GMT -6
Btw., for those who want to see what's possible, here's what I replied to the post which asked for the oath: "I pledge myself to loyality to Talossa." Apparently it was accepted. Very interesting. That is certainly not the oath required by law (37RZ3). I can only surmise that its acceptance was based on the unique circumstances of the Reunision, as legally enabled by 43RZ10 (and also based on a particular interpretation of terms appearing in those statutes such as "Oath of Citizenship" versus "Oath of Talossan Citizenship." Given that 43RZ10 was repealed after Reunision by 43RZ26, what was possible for you might not be possible any longer. Sure was! It cites this Canadian appeals court decision in the case of a Canadian republican who challenged the citizenship oath. I think the court's decision is perfectly applicable here, and seems consistent with Miestra's thinking on the oath:
The oath of allegiance required under the Citizenship Act is to the effect that the oath-taker (or affirmer) "will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors." Although there is an immemorial common law tradition behind the role of the monarch as Head of State, that is now subsumed by section 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides with respect to executive power that "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen," and by section 17, which provides with respect to legislative power that "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, or Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons." Since Canada is a constitutional and not an absolute monarchy, the Queen does not rule personally, but rather may be said to "reign" by constitutional convention....
If the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867 and any others dependent on them (such as sections 10-16) were repealed or amended so as, for example, to substitute some differently designated person for the monarch, it cannot be doubted that the monarch would no longer be the Head of State for Canada, provided of course that the constitutional amendment were properly made under Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, since "the office of the Queen" is specifically made amendable by paragraph 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 "by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province."
Against this constitutional background, the oath of allegiance has to be understood to be binding in the same way as the rest of the Constitution of Canada -- not forever, nor in some inherent way, but only so long as the Constitution is unamended in that respect.
It is a matter of common sense and common consent that it is neither unconstitutional, nor illegal, nor inappropriate to advocate the amendment of the Constitution.... Paragraph 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 itself "dares" constitutionally to legitimize the abolition of the monarchy. All that is required for constitutional legitimacy is that the constitutionally provided amending formula be followed.
Given that the appellant does not advocate revolutionary change (i.e., change contrary to the Constitution itself), his freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association cannot conceivably be limited by the oath of allegiance, since the taking of the oath of allegiance in no way diminishes the exercise of those freedoms. The fact that the oath "personalizes" one particular constitutional provision has no constitutional relevance, since that personalization is derived from the Constitution itself. As it was put by Professor Frank MacKinnon, The Crown in Canada, Glenbow-Alberta Institute, 1976, at page 69, "Elizabeth II is the personal expression of the Crown of Canada". Even thus personalized, that part of the Constitution relating to the Queen is amendable, and so its amendment may be freely advocated, consistently with the oath of allegiance, either by expression, by peaceful assembly or by association.
(Internal citations and footnotes omitted.) |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jan 12, 2013 7:41:20 GMT -6
Interestingly enough, it appears Britains oath doesn't mention the monarch: I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen. That's just the "Citizenship Pledge." British immigrants also swear the following Oath of Allegiance: I... swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2013 7:57:48 GMT -6
Interestingly enough, it appears Britains oath doesn't mention the monarch: I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen. That's just the "Citizenship Pledge." British immigrants also swear the following Oath of Allegiance: I... swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law. Well look at that, if I had read the first part of the sentence I would have noticed that. Didn't GI Joe teach me anything? |
|
"Ceterum censeo republicam proclamandum esse."
