|
|
Post by Nathan on Aug 5, 2005 22:10:20 GMT -6
is anyone else seeing the contradiction here?
|
|
|
|
Post by darcyj on Aug 6, 2005 1:13:06 GMT -6
Not at all. The King's power to refuse or revoke citizenship appears to be absolute so long as it is not predicated on one of the criteria of the previous Article.
For example, revocation following a conviction for Treason would not violate any part of Article 4 - "treason" is an action, not an opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Aug 6, 2005 13:08:34 GMT -6
Hmmm... maybe...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Aug 6, 2005 13:09:00 GMT -6
That reminds me, aren't I in charge of fixing the citizenship thread and taking out all those who revoked their citizenship?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Aug 6, 2005 18:46:22 GMT -6
Thank you for your comments President Darcy. That treason bit is the reason 5 was added, its supposed to give the king (formerly the Grand Chancellor had this power as well) over immediatly removing citizenship from a dangerous person... however, the "or other status" at the end of 4 is rather ambiguous, and being a criminal, treasonous or not, is a status. Although, 4 says "denied" and 5 says "revoke" so... I have to give citizenship to anyone who requests it... but I can revoke it for any reason at all... hehehe.
neem... actually.. dont delete those oaths yet, I was gonna propose some legislation about how to organize that. the thread with the oaths would be more of an archive, while the Census thread would list actual citizens... and thats how the King could control who has and doesnt have citizenship... coz you, the minister of internal affairs, could have my power as outlined in point 5 above devolved to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Aug 6, 2005 23:40:15 GMT -6
Okey dokey
|
|
