Request for Review - Citizenship Oaths

Hello justices,

I have a question. When does a citizen's oath become effective and binding them to the tenets of our laws?

Is it at the time they take the oath or is it at the point in time when their application is accepted? This may only amount to a few days, but I would like a formal ruling on the matter to better inform my actions in future situations.

I apologise for posting here, Justices, but I just want to ask a question of punk.

Do you mean the Regional Assembly oath? I've looked at the citizenship thread and there doesn't appear to be an oath there.

Yes, sorry - I do mean RA Oath. I think of RA and Citizenship as one in the same. They are not.

Interesting question. I would say, cursorily and unofficially (as a personal opinion and dependent upon what the other justices conclude in totallity), that when the oath comes into effect is at the time the oath is given (Citizenship itself technically requires no oath and is not the same thing as RA membership).

For instance, when one applies for membership in the RA, One presents an oath. If the oath is given in good faith and the presumption that membership in the RA is to be granted as a matter of course, then, the oath logically comes into effect when the oath is taken.

That said, if membership in the RA is denied, the oath is obviously null and void.

Given the time constraints in granting RA membership, the time between giving the oath and the actual acceptance of the oath might be considered simultaneous despite a time-lag between the two actual instances as though an application to the RA was made, accepted and confirmed by the oath itself. Under the current law the order is taking the oath, then approval of the application. Hence, I would say that the oath technically takes effect when the oath is made.

Speaking as an observer, most if not all oaths are taken after the position is confirmed. Since this is impractical online, it does make sense that once an oath is sworn it takes effect then and there.

Keeping in mind that tnp laws are still applied to the nation's in game regardless.

Which is retarded, how are you going to tell someone, you have just been made here, and now you have to follow our laws.

Seems like the only time the answer to this question would matter is in a criminal trial - which is where this precedent should be set, in my opinion.

Crushing Our Enemies:

Seems like the only time the answer to this question would matter is in a criminal trial - which is where this precedent should be set, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree.

Personally I don't believe the Court of The North Pacific should engage in issuing Advisory Opinions; I acknowledge it has done so in the past, but such opinions are usually unasked for, inflame debate, and are generally quite political in nature, something which I think the Court should do its best to avoid.

This would be best answered in the context of a criminal trial where the breaking of one's oath was under examination.

This is seeking to define when RA membership begins. I think that is a question the court can answer irrespective of any case before it.

Meaning, the answer from the court in this request would be the same regardless of the situation. There really is no room for interpretation on this issue because RA membership can't begin and end at different times for different members.

I will consider this request later this afternoon. My apologies for the delay.

Tyler Kazakov:

Which is retarded, how are you going to tell someone, you have just been made here, and now you have to follow our laws.

Click to expand...

Then we should allow an unknown nation to sweep into the Delegacy because they remain blissfully unaware of our laws?

No. The answer is in communication. If they are truly a new nation and if they are truly unaware of our regional laws, then usually communicating with them is enough to resolve the issue. If they are not as unknown as they claim to be and are deliberately attempting to subvert the region or test our security, then it is irrelevant. The law still applies to them for as long as this community keeps those laws in place and retains the authority to enforce them.

My point was that punk does not have standing on this issue, and the only people who *would* have standing are folks facing criminal charges where it matters when they became RA members - and in those cases, it seems dumb to have a request for review concurrent with their case.

Crushing Our Enemies:

My point was that punk does not have standing on this issue, and the only people who *would* have standing are folks facing criminal charges where it matters when they became RA members - and in those cases, it seems dumb to have a request for review concurrent with their case.

Click to expand...

Actually this also impacts the 15 day requirement as well, I believe, depending on how the justices rule on this matter.

It looks like the rules are a bit different than I remember. I had thought, that the AG had standing in all reviews. I couldn't find that in the current court rules so it may have changed or I may have remembered it incorrectly.

Nonetheless - I'll let the justices determine standing here and if they wish to take up this review.

If it please the court, will you be taking up this review?

EDIT: In regards to the AG's standing, with the passage of the Attorney General OmnibusBill, the Constitution states:

38. The Attorney General shall have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.

Click to expand...

Just a couple things, punk, really minor, but I'm a pedantic bugger, so you can ignore me

1. That's not the Constitution, it's a very naughty boy the Legal Code.

2. It's not in the law yet because the Delegate hasn't signed it (thereby signifying he won't veto it).

Though I would say to punk that with the removal of Funk, it's likely the CJ is searching for a suitable THO before he responds to whether or not he will take this case.

1. You're right. Read - "Constitution" as "Legal Code" in my prior post.
2. You're right. McM - Don't Veto!!

3. Funk was removed yesterday, so I am not sure that is the cause for delay on whether or not the Court will take up the case.

punk d:

3. Funk was removed yesterday, so I am not sure that is the cause for delay on whether or not the Court will take up the case.

Click to expand...

I had forgotten that the Court Rules changed to say any Justice could accept a review; previously it was that they had to discuss amongst themselves whether or not to accept it, which is why I said he was probably waiting on a THO.

CoE - please see this post as an example of what I was talking about in regards to the 15 day rule. My office looks to address issues that are pertinent to all RA members and when the oath comes into effect is a pertinent question for all RA members, not just those potentially facing prosecution.

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8113448&t=7104472

Justices, I do hope that you take up this issue.

I think the law is abundantly clear about when RA members are admitted to the RA - no "accept" or "admit" language is ever used except in connection with the Speaker accepting their applications, or being automatically admitted after 14 days. People join the RA when I say they do, in other words.

The only fuzzy legal question here is when or if the oath becomes binding, which is only important when a member is brought up on criminal charges. If they're never accused of breaking their oath, it doesn't matter if or when it is binding.

My apologies for the delay, I was unable to post earlier because of RL obligations. I also needed to take some time to deliberate over whether to accept this request.

---

Consideration of the request

This request falls under the general category of "reviews". There are three reasons why I could reject this request: 1) jurisdiction; 2) standing; and 3) procedural issues, in this case regarding the application process. I will examine the three separately.

1) In the jurisdiction of The North Pacific and at least since the Legal Code revamp in June 2012, we have used the term "review" to refer to three types of cases typically considered distinct: advisory opinions, challenges of constitutionality of laws, and challenges of actions and policies of the government. The last two are what are usually called "judicial review"; I will collectively refer to them as "challenges" for the remaining of this post, to avoid confusion arising from the multiple meanings of "review".

The current constitution appears to empower the court to offer advisory opinions under Article 1, Section 4:

1. The Court will try all criminal and civil cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.

Click to expand...

The part highlighted in bold is the relevant one. Advisory opinions may be provided by the court as answers to questions of law regarding a conflict or ambiguity in the law.

The current request is in the first category of reviews, a request for advisory opinion: it does not challenge any actions or laws, but rather asks a question of law, to be answered in a generic context and detached from the circumstances of a particular case. It is my opinion that it is also one that falls within the jurisdiction of the court to answer, as defined by Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution. The question posed concerns the possibility of interpreting a law in two distinct ways; this constitutes an instance of what the Constitution describes as "ambiguities in the law".

2) The issue of standing is simpler. Now that the Attorney General Omnibus Act came into effect, the Attorney General has standing in all cases.

3) Finally, regarding procedural issues, there are currently two sources of procedure for the review application process: the part of the Adopted Court Rules concerning reviews (found here), and the Ruling of the Court of the North PacificIn regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by flemingovia on the definition of “affected party” (found http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8091756&t=7036751).

The Adopted Court Rules for reviews are straightforward, and I do not believe this request has violated any of them. The request probably does fall short of satisfying the procedural criteria set out by the court judgment I referenced, specifically because it does not reference the exact legal clauses the question posed pertains to. However, I note that those criteria appear to apply only to those review requests that fall under the category of judicial challenges, as I described it earlier. We have already established that this is a review request of the advisory opinion type. I would prefer it if the same stringent criteria laid down by the court judgment for judicial challenges requests also applied to advisory opinion requests, but that is currently not the case. I will seek to make it be so in the future. For now though, it would be unfair to the applicant to dismiss his request on these grounds, especially given that the deficiency in his application I identified earlier can be remedied in an alternative manner.

Decision

I accept the request for review. The petitioner is asked to enumerate the legal clauses his question concerns, and detail where the ambiguity arises.

Other matters

With the removal of Justice Funkadelia from the Regional Assembly, I need to appoint a Temporary Hearing Officer before a decision on the case itself can be made. I have already notified privately some potential appointees, and I will announce my appointment once I receive their responses.

Given that the request has been accepted, there is no need to stop all progress in this case. The petitioner should act on the request I made previously. Interested parties may also file briefs for 48 hours.

I thank the court for it's decision. I will within 48 hours cite the clauses within our laws that appear ambiguous to me.

r3naissanc3r:

2) The issue of standing is simpler. Now that the Attorney General Omnibus Act came into effect, the Attorney General has standing in all cases.

Click to expand...

The Attorney General Omnibus Act has not come into effect yet. It has been passed by the Regional Assembly and the delegate has indicated his intention not to veto, but it is not yet reflected in the Legal Code. It will come into effect later today, when I have the opportunity to implement it.

r3naissanc3r:

Interested parties may also file briefs for 48 hours.

Click to expand...

I request that 48 hours be given for filing briefs beginning when the petitioner complies with your request, so that interested parties may file briefs on the actual request of the petitioner, and not what they predict it might be.

I was of the view that Laws are enacted once the Regional Assembly enacts the laws as long as the Delegate does not veto the law within 7 days of its passage.

I'd be interested to know where in the constitution or legal code is says that laws are given force once the Speaker edits the laws page.

There are no laws regarding the implementation of new legislation, nor is there any provision of the RA rules regarding it. Thus, common sense would seem to indicated that legislation becomes law when it is actually reflected in the...laws. If common sense is not accepted, that I would point to Article 2, Section 6, which gives me discretion in this matter, since amending laws is a power of the RA.

Anyway, the fact is that if something isn't in any of our legal documents, it is not the law yet.

It seems to me a bill becomes law when it passes. The procedure of adding it to a link seems unnecessary in determining if a law is actually a law.

But - this discussion seems a little outside of the intent this particular request for review.

I guess I don't like the assumption that the law doesn't apply until the Speaker decides to edit it into the legal documents. Well beyond the scope of the Speaker's power.

punk d:

It seems to me a bill becomes law when it passes. The procedure of adding it to a link seems unnecessary in determining if a law is actually a law.

Click to expand...

This.

The Delegate's veto can only be applied in the first week of its passage - the tradition of the Delegate signing it is nothing more than an indication he won't veto it.

The Constitution says the Regional Assembly enacts laws, not the Speaker when he eventually decides to update the law page. Under this assumption, the Speaker could fancy himself to have a pocket veto - if he didn't like a certain law, he'd never put it into the Legal Code. No law grants him this power.

I do not believe that is correct, nor what COE intended - but I also disagree with his intention.

After a week has passed with no veto, a piece of legislation has the force of law whether or not it has been edited into the legal code. A lazy Speaker's office does not have the power to block passed legislation merely by sitting around. If a bill has not been vetoed and is outside the window of veto, it is law - this seems eminently clear.

It is only within the first week that it exists in a very murky limbo, which the signing process was intended to clear up but only does so provided that we all pretend everything is better.

If the delegate vetoes a bill immediately, it is clear that that bill is not law. If the delegate waits until the seventh day to veto, it is clear that the bill no longer has the force of law, and may or may not have before that, though my inclination would be to say that it did not. I admit, however, that this inclination is drawn by analogy to RL, although it is also how we have interpreted this situation in the past, so I believe it holds up.

If the delegate signals his intent to not veto or signs the bill, we have been treating that as establishing the bill as law from that point. However, as there is no legal basis for signing, merely a conventional one, the delegate would be free to sign the bill and then, at the end of the 7-day period, veto it. Would the bill then have had the force of law the preceding days? This has no easy parallel in the real world, as choosing to sign a bill generally (though perhaps not always) excludes a later veto - just as a veto excludes a later signing.

As we are still within the 7-day period for this bill, McM remains free to veto it at any time. It is not at all clear to me that it is yet law, whether or not it is in the legal code.

Thank you, SillyString. I had forgotten to mention how the veto power affects all this. Seven days after a bill passes, it is definitely law, even if I do not update the legal code. I say as much in my notifications to the delegate regarding new legislation. Without the delegate's approval, I would not update the legal code (and, in my view, turn legislation into law) before seven days had passed. However, if seven days have not passed, the approval of the delegate is not, in my view, sufficient to turn legislation into law. That requires me to update the legal code.

I was typing my last post very quickly, and am typing this one in a hurry as well. I hope I've been clear about why I do not consider the AG omnibus bill to be law just yet. It *will* become law, in my view, when I update the legal code in the next few hours.

However, if seven days have not passed, the approval of the delegate is not, in my view, sufficient to turn legislation into law. That requires me to update the legal code.

Click to expand...

Here's the relevant section of the Constitution:

4. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote.

Click to expand...

If CoE wanted to argue that signing law say on day 3 after the RA passed it was not sufficient because on day 6 the delegate could change his/her mind, I may be inclined to go with that line of reasoning. But here again, CoE brings in his updating the legal code enacting legislation.

I don't believe that process has anything to do with something having the force of law or not.

The issue of when a bill becomes law is separate to this case. Any further commentary on the issue should take place elsewhere and outside the court, unless of course a new review request is brought on that specific subject. I will split any further posts unrelated to the case at hand.

If anyone disagrees with my reasoning for accepting this request, they are welcome to submit a review against my decision. Obviously I will recuse myself from hearing that review.

It should also be noted that my commentary in posts where I accept or dismiss a request for review does not constitute a decision of the court and does not amount to a binding interpretation of the law.

The OP of this thread asked:

When does a citizen's oath become effective and binding them to the tenets of our laws?

Is it at the time they take the oath or is it at the point in time when their application is accepted? This may only amount to a few days, but I would like a formal ruling on the matter to better inform my actions in future situations.

Click to expand...

The basis of this question comes from RA applicants posting oaths prior to being admitted to the RA. The Legal Code mandates each applicant swear an oath prior as part of their RA application:

Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

Click to expand...

Further portions of this section of the Legal Code do not seem to indicate when the oath is binding to the applicant. I could not find any section of the Legal Code or Constitution that mentions when the oath becomes binding to the applicant.

One could argue that the oath becomes binding when the applicant makes the oath. One could also argue that it becomes binding only when the applicant is accepted into the Regional Assembly. To be honest, I’m not quite sure how to answer the question I am posing to the court. To me, the action of voluntarily making the oath should make it binding to the applicant at the time the oath is made. However, how is it possible to enforce the particulars of the oath upon a particular person who wasn’t yet part of the Regional Assembly?

Another question for the court provided that the court finds that the oath is binding at the time it is stated - does the 15 day clock start ticking at the time the oath is given? Why or why not?

“15 day clock” refers to this provision of the Constitution:

Constitution:

1. All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of nominations.

Click to expand...

I thank the court for its time.

The original request, and the one that I accepted, was for a question regarding the time when the membership oath becomes binding.

The second question the petitioner submitted appears to be at best tangentially related to the original one, and will not be admitted. The petitioner may file a separate request for review on that question if he still wants it answered.

Therefore, only the following part of the petitioner's post will be considered for this review:

Punk d:

The OP of this thread asked:

When does a citizen's oath become effective and binding them to the tenets of our laws?

Is it at the time they take the oath or is it at the point in time when their application is accepted? This may only amount to a few days, but I would like a formal ruling on the matter to better inform my actions in future situations.

Click to expand...

The basis of this question comes from RA applicants posting oaths prior to being admitted to the RA. The Legal Code mandates each applicant swear an oath prior as part of their RA application:

Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

Click to expand...

Further portions of this section of the Legal Code do not seem to indicate when the oath is binding to the applicant. I could not find any section of the Legal Code or Constitution that mentions when the oath becomes binding to the applicant.

One could argue that the oath becomes binding when the applicant makes the oath. One could also argue that it becomes binding only when the applicant is accepted into the Regional Assembly. To be honest, I’m not quite sure how to answer the question I am posing to the court. To me, the action of voluntarily making the oath should make it binding to the applicant at the time the oath is made. However, how is it possible to enforce the particulars of the oath upon a particular person who wasn’t yet part of the Regional Assembly?

Click to expand...

---

Crushing Our Enemies:

I request that 48 hours be given for filing briefs beginning when the petitioner complies with your request, so that interested parties may file briefs on the actual request of the petitioner, and not what they predict it might be.

Click to expand...

Granted. The 48 hours start as of this post.

I thank the court for considering the matter.

I am appointing Malashaan as Temporary Hearing Officer, to replace former Justice Funkadelia for this case.

Now that the court is full again, will this issue be taken up soon?

Strike that.

On 9/23 a THO was appointed. We're at just over 19 days later. Does the court know when a ruling will be issued on this matter?

le bump

One final Bump.

The Court took into consideration the Inquiry filed here by Punk D.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Codified Law of the North Pacific:

Section 6.1: Regional Assembly Membership Act
2. Any person with an account on the regional forum and a nation in The North Pacific may apply for Regional Assembly membership, using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

Click to expand...

3. A copy of the laws applicants are pledging to obey must be available to them at all times.
4. An application for Regional Assembly membership ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific nation is not located in The North Pacific.
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to evaluate Regional Assembly applicants and verify that they do not pose a threat to regional security.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly will immediately hold a majority vote on whether to uphold the rejection.
8. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
9. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been accepted or rejected within that time, they will be automatically accepted to the Regional Assembly.

Click to expand...

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the previous ruling of the Court in regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Eluvatar on oath violations by former members of the Regional Assembly:

The Court had determined that the matter is twofold. If the violation occurs after the time in which the nation is no longer a member of the Regional Assembly then they are not violating their oath as they are not bound to that oath at the current moment. Whereas if the violation occurs during the time in which the nation was a member of the Regional Assembly and was bound by that oath they may be tried for an Oath Violation.

Click to expand...

The Court opines the following:

The Court has previously ruled that former Regional Assembly members are no longer bound by the Regional Assembly oath when their membership expires, and that they are bound by the oath while they are Regional Assembly members. It is heavily implied by that same ruling that the oath is only binding while a nation is a member of the Regional Assembly. The Court sees no compelling reason to overturn that precedent.

It is the opinion of the Court that the Regional Assembly membership oath found in Section 6 Clause 2 of the Codified Law of the North Pacific becomes legally binding on RA applicants if and when they become members of the Regional Assembly, and remains binding only so long as they remain members. Explicitly, the oath becomes binding when any of the following conditions are met:

• The Speaker admits the applicant and/or accepts their application;
• The applicant has neither been accepted nor rejected after 14 days pass from the date of their application;
• The applicant has been rejected by the Speaker for failing a security check by the Vice Delegate, and the RA has voted not to uphold that rejection.

Those conditions are the same conditions under which an applicant becomes a member of the RA.

Decision
The Regional Assembly oath becomes legally binding upon a nation when they become a member of the Regional Assembly.