|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 2, 2013 16:17:12 GMT -6
As to the partisan nature of this issue - you misinterpret my comment. I make no implication that this was done intentionally because of political affiliation. I suggest that IF Tim were not a supporter of the current government, would the SoS's failure to make his renunciation official be considered a "minor oversight"? ...yes? I mean, why not? As I told you, it's an infrequent task (there have been fewer than half a dozen renunciations!) and a relatively recent one. I suggest that if the returning citizen were someone not as well thought of as Tim - someone who had not done so much for the Kingdom - someone who had fomented more discord than dedication ... I suggest that in such a case, the SoS's "minor oversight" MIGHT be overlooked therefore requiring the former citizen to go through the immigration process outlined in law. Ah, I see! Well, that makes more sense. It's an interesting thing to think about - do our officials grant more leeway to some citizens than to others? I want to point out that it is probably a little irresponsible to speculate about this, unless it has actually happened. It does imply that you doubt the integrity of our officials in a personal sense, rather than an institutional sense (as you have now made clear). So the question is: do we want to allow officials like the SoS any sort of discretion? If they have discretion, then they will certainly use it - the SoS won't be as likely to rush to acknowledge the renunciation of a prominent and valued citizen, as opposed to someone who immigrated last week. In the past, the SoS had no discretion. Renunciations took effect 24 hours after they were made. That proved annoying, since people would renounce and then take it back within a day as a big dramatic annoyance. We got rid of it, and just said that they took effect when the SoS sealed them. That's discretion, because it worked better. I'm okay with it, since if an SoS does it irresponsibly, the Ziu can remove them. Are you calling for a return to the 24-hour thing, or something similar? Are you criticizing Iusti in particular and accusing him of unfairly using his discretion, rather what (I can only assume) was a small oversight? What are you saying? And THAT, my dear Alex, WAS thought about before it was written. mag Well, every little bit of progress is good. If you don't want "RUMP intolerance of any opposition criticism" to be an election theme, perhaps it is you who must weigh your words. This is hard to take seriously, considering how "RUMP intolerance of any opposition criticism" has been a theme basically since you entered the Kingdom.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Dec 2, 2013 16:24:35 GMT -6
Actually, I've been hanging fire hoping someone could clarify the legal situation. Possibly the easiest/best thing to do would be to let the PD fall by the wayside, acknowledge that the Admiral's citizenship never lapsed (the Chancery having never acted on whatever renunciation he may have made), and close the loopholes by legislative action. I think.
— John R
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 2, 2013 17:15:32 GMT -6
I agree that the best thing would be to "pocket veto" the PD, Your Majesty, but I do think we should ask Tim to go through the normal immigration process after that. I know he wouldn't mind, and it would clear up any shadow of a doubt about the matter. Technically, he may never have lost his citizenship, but he might even prefer to do it this way, where no one can say he snuck in through a loophole.
We certainly do need to put up a fix for the legislation. Anyone have any better ideas than my thing (which just automatically makes a renunciation official one week after it is posted, unless the SoS acknowledges it first)? I think it solves both issues, preventing big splashy drama ("I renounce... and take it back!") and stopping this silliness from happening again.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Dec 2, 2013 17:20:41 GMT -6
We certainly do need to put up a fix for the legislation. Anyone have any better ideas than my thing (which just automatically makes a renunciation official one week after it is posted, unless the SoS acknowledges it first)? I think it solves both issues, preventing big splashy drama ("I renounce... and take it back!") and stopping this silliness from happening again. No, your idea sounds like the best solution.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 2, 2013 17:22:36 GMT -6
We gradually and inevitably will move towards legislative perfection, at which point Talossans will ascend into a higher plane of existence as beings of pure energy.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Dec 2, 2013 17:33:26 GMT -6
Well, well, well. Are you not just a whacky one, Alex! <3 You made me laugh, even though I am swimming in a pool the rain has created inside my home! (:
Anyway, I realise it could take long, but the Ziu could also pass a statute that restores the Admiral's citizenship immediately, no?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 2, 2013 17:41:45 GMT -6
Sure. That would take effect without delay. But of course, that would mean a longer wait.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Dec 2, 2013 17:50:30 GMT -6
Not considering the latest pace of the InMin!
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Dec 3, 2013 2:11:04 GMT -6
We certainly do need to put up a fix for the legislation. Anyone have any better ideas than my thing (which just automatically makes a renunciation official one week after it is posted, unless the SoS acknowledges it first)? I think it solves both issues, preventing big splashy drama ("I renounce... and take it back!") and stopping this silliness from happening again. No, your idea sounds like the best solution. Alexandreu's idea?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Dec 3, 2013 7:09:10 GMT -6
Eeh?, I think that's what I meant, but you're making me doubt myself.
|
|
|
Post by Martì Prevuost on Dec 3, 2013 9:07:23 GMT -6
Your Majesty, et. al.,
I was attempting to not weigh in from a legal stand point but, as the least of the jurists in the Kingdom here goes:
Tim is a citizen, his renunciation notwithstanding. Current law requires Governmental action to give effect to a public renunciation. In this case, Governmental action did not occur, ergo the renunciation was never legally in effect, Tim has just been absent. There is no need nor authority for Tim to undergo immigration.
Likewise, the PD announcing his return is of no consequence and amounts to an ephemeral PD. With Your Majesty's veto, the PD goes away - leaving us as we were before Tim renounced.
Interestingly enough, there is no time limit nor other prohibition in current law which would preclude the Government from taking untimely action on a renunciation. Theoretically, the Government could affirm any outstanding renunciations irrespective of whether said renunciations were later withdrawn. While this would be legal, it would be, using the technical term: bad.
End of legal analysis.
Now, back to my original theme. Having had more time to reflect, my objections were and are on the gaps in the law. It is the law which allowed the current situation to develop. While Iusti erred in not acknowledging Tim's renunciation, I do not believe his failure was intentional. I believe it was significant, as renunciation itself is significant, but not intentional. Do I believe the SoS should have discretion to (briefly) delay acknowledgement of a renunciation to ensure Citizens have fully considered their actions? Of course. Should that discretion extend to months? Not in my opinion, but there is no prohibition on it in the law but fairness and equitable treatment under the law should prevail.
For what it's worth: mag
*Edit for grammatical error.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Dec 3, 2013 15:45:09 GMT -6
Without wanting to sound like a know-it-all,
I cannot see how officially recognising a withdrawn renunciation that was pending is possible?
|
|
|
Post by Martì Prevuost on Dec 3, 2013 16:22:57 GMT -6
The existing law has no time limit for the Government to recognize a renunciation, nor are there provisions for withdrawing a renunciation before it is recognized.
It would seem that among the legislative fixes for this would be to establish a minimum time frame for consideration before which the Government may not affirm the renunciation and a maximum time after which the renunciation takes effect of its own accord unless earlier withdrawn by the Citizen.
mag
|
|
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 Dec 4, 2013 4:34:43 GMT -6
Hmm. I think I'd be inclined to take discretion out of it and just have renunciations effective after a fixed period of time. But that was the old law, and I opposed changing it in the first place. This is one of two areas where I think we changed the law shortsightedly and didn't like what we got, so ever since we've been trying to work around the new law that we put into place. The other is how there used to be a streamlined process for lapsed citizens to re-enter the country (involving a "What Talossa Used to Mean to Me" "Why Talossa Hasn't Meant That Much to Me" essay). The Ziu decided that re-immigrants should have to go through the same immigration process as new immigrants. And ever since then we've tried to avoid making them do just that, with immigration PDs for returning citizens. Again, we should return to the old law (or something more like it than the more arbitrary practice of late).
(And sorry for not being around much lately -- we have two computers down around here, but I should be back in the swing of things in no time.)
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Dec 5, 2013 19:21:43 GMT -6
I checked with the SoS and his renunciation was never recognized. I do not know WHY it wasn't (that is a question for the SoS), but simply that it was not. I issued the PD to remove doubt but I am happy to revoke it if necessary.
EDIT: However, since the king has NOT vetoed it (or from my understanding of his post he has not done so) I believe the PD stands as is. I do have one question for the more legal minds, can the king actually veto a PD? I know he should give his assent, but I do believe that after a certain time has passed, it is assumed to have been assented to in the absence of comment from the throne.
|
|