July Update

---

The Citizenship Act 2015 - 06/2015 - # 13:

GEORGE VI

The Citizenship Act 2015 (2014)​

Date of Proposal: 23/06/2015
Proposed by: Nick Hanover (MP)
Written by: Nick Hanover
Serial Number: HB; 06.2015.0003(continuing to 99)
Current Bill Stage: Debate | Voting | Imperial Assent


BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:


Short Title
The Citizenship Act


Long Title
The Citizenship Act 2015

Definitions

1. “Citizen” a member of the Kingdom of Great Britain’s off site forum.
2. "Citizenship Applicant" - The individual who has applied for citizenship on the off-site forum.


Provisions

1. This act will enable people to become citizens of this region on the off site forum.
2. The Home Secretary and His Majesty the King will be the only people able to approve citizenship of the region
3. A citizenship applicant may be granted citizenship if:
(a) The official application forum has been correctly filled in.
(b) They have a nation in the Kingdom of Great Britain.
4. Failure to meet any of the above requirements will lead to the citizenship application being declined
5. A applicant has the right to appeal to the courts if their application is declined.
6. The Home Secretary has the power to question any member via PM if they feel that there is something suspicious about their application.
7. The Home Secretary or His Majesty the King must provide valid reasoning in public for a rejected application.
8. In the event of the Home Secretary being unavailable or the king for more than 24 hours then the Prime Minister shall have the power to accept or refuse the application.
9. A citizen may have their citizenship removed if:
(a) They fail to maintain a nation in the Kingdom of Great Britain without informing the Home Office.
(b) They are deemed a security threat following a fair and open court trial.

Click to expand...

Article I. Section A.:

Section A - Citizens are defined as full members of the forum whom:

1. have a nation in The Kingdom of Great Britain or any of the colonies thereof; and
2. have applied for, and been granted citizenship, in conformity to legislation

Click to expand...

Article III. Section D.:

21. TM shall have the right to grant, reject, and ban, applicants, citizens, and diplomats, deemed a security risk by SIS.

Click to expand...

Article III. Section G.:

Section - G - TM the Monarch(s) is the Head of State and the People's Autocrat, and as such, immune from any form of criminal or civil prosecution.

Click to expand...

Request.

John Hanover, has requested from the Justices to submit to the Office of Legal Aid, Advisory Opinions on the proposed Citizenship Act that is currently under consideration by the Parliament.

Reasoning.

Upon review, I have found three provisions which speak to this issue. I have quoted them above. Depending on how you read these texts, they could be congruent or contradictory.

However, I am of the opinion, that we should read the laws as plainly as possible. It helps to avoid confusion, and applies a dose of common sense which is characteristic of our region.

Therefore, as we look at Article I, the Constitution clearly expects that legislation could be made in regards to citizenship. This section is consistent to this legislation. Therefore, we can dispose of our concern over this provision.

While at the same time our eyes move to the second quotation. Article III states that the Monarchy has a royal prerogative in regards to citizenship.

The most major problem here is, that the Article III quotation is consisting of nothing but commas. Unfortunately, punctuation is key to the meaning of this clause. Reading it with grammatical rules in mind, instead of stating that the Monarchy has total control over citizenships, it only has authority in regards to those deemed a security risk by the Secret Intelligence Service.

If you go back to the proposed legislation and read the provisions, ironically, the probable typographical error of Article III, actually makes the proposed legislation unconstitutional.

Please notice that the proposed legislation, tries to modify the use of banishment or rejection of possible or actual citizens that are to be classified as a security risk. The classification and the determination of a security risk lies solely with Their Majesties and the Secret Intelligence Service. (Provision 9(b).)

Now, our we move to the third quotation. Their Majesties are fully immune from court action in any form. This is violated specifically by Provision 5 and Provision 9(b). Provision 9(b) is included in the violation of Their Majesties protection from prosecution, because as was explained earlier, a security risk can only be defined by Their Majesties or the SIS, to sue them in open court would be a civil prosecution. Again, this is unconstitutional.

Conclusion.

Thanks to the previous REASONING, this bill is determined to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

---

THE FOREIGN TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS ACT - 07/2015 - # 14th:

GEORGE VI

THE FOREIGN TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS ACT (2015)​

Date of Proposal: 16/07/2015
Proposed by: His Grace, Lord William Bettingham
Written by: His Grace, Lord William Bettingham
Serial Number: HB; 07.2015.0001(continuing to 99)
Current Bill Stage: Debate | Voting | Imperial Assent


BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:


The Foreign Treaties Act


The Foreign Treaties and Agreements Act


Definitions

1. A "treaty" is defined as any legally binding document signed between our region and one or a number of foreign regions.

2. For the purpose of this legislation, "region," includes any recognized foreign entities with the NS world.

Provisions

1. Deliberations

a. All deliberations between our region and a foreign government about entering into a treaty must include the monarch and the Prime Minister.

b. The Prime Minister may, at their discretion, also include members of their government into the negotiations with a foreign region.

c. The monarch, if they are unable to attend in person, may send a representative on their behalf to be present at the negotiations.

2. Signing

a. For a treaty with a foreign region to become law, it must be signed both by the monarch and the Prime Minister.

3. Review Period

a. A period of review will be provided for all treaties with foreign regions after they've been signed.

b. This period will last 10 days, and begin immediately after signing.

c. During this period, the House of Lords may at their discretion choose to review the treaty. The review will consist of an examination of the treaty, a debate on the treaty, and then a vote to confirm or deny the treaty.

d. If the House of Lords votes to deny the treaty, then the treaty is voided.

e. The monarch has the power to override a denial vote in the House of Lords by issuing an imperial decree.

3. Implementation

a. This act will become law immediately upon receiving the signature of the monarch.

Click to expand...

1.

Article VI. Section C.:

Section C - The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and supersedes all others with the exception of Imperial Decree.

Click to expand...

2.

Article II. Section O.:

Section O - The conclusion of an international treaty which contains stipulations contrary to the Constitution shall require a prior constitutional revision.

2. Either of the Houses may request the Supreme Court to declare whether or not such a contradiction exists.

Click to expand...

3.

Article III. Section D.:

12. TM shall have the right to grant Royal Assent or give absolute veto on all Acts, Constitutional Amendments, or treaties that change the powers of the monarchy.

Click to expand...

4.

Article III. Section E.:

Section - E
1. Their Majesty's accredits ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives. Foreign representatives in The Kingdom of Great Britain are accredited before him/her.

2. It is incumbent on TM to express the consent of the State to obligate itself internationally through treaties in conformity with the Constitution and the laws.

Click to expand...

5.

Article II. Section D.:

4. The House of Lords shall serve as the Sovereigns House within the Parliament and has the exclusive rights to:

(A) Draft, discuss, amend, and vote on bills proposed by members of the House of Lords.
(B) Review, vote and amend Bills and Acts of Parliament passed by the HoC.
(C) To Suspend a Lord from Parliament with the consent of the Monarch
(D) To have Appellate Jurisdiction in cases of Governmental Impeachment
(E) To Confirm or Deny appointments of the Monarch to the Judiciary by majority vote, and their removal by 2/3rds absolute majority.
(F) Recommend bills and acts of Parliament to the HoC
(G) Any other granted by the laws of the Realm.

Click to expand...

6.

Article II. Section E.:

3. The House of Commons as the governing body of Parliament has the exclusive rights to:

(A) Draft, discuss, amend and vote on Bills and Acts of Parliament.
(B) Hold Votes of No Confidence against the Prime Minister. Should it pass with a majority of 2/3 of total MPs, the Government will be dissolved and General Elections will be called.
(C) Hold Votes of No Confidence against Cabinet Ministers.
(D) Create or Dissolve Commons' Investigative Committees,
(E) Organize its own parliamentary procedure if necessary,
(F) Remove Members of Parliament who have been inactive for 7 days or more without previous notification,
(G) Any other granted by the laws of the Realm.

Click to expand...

7.

Article IV. Section E:

Section E - The Prime Minister has the power to:

1. Create or abolish ministries;

2. Appoint and dismiss cabinet members;

3. Take control of a ministry and resume the duties of an absent or otherwise incapable Secretary, until a suitable replacement can be found.

4. Recommend judicial appointments to the Crown

5. Appoint a government representative for cases before the Supreme Court

Click to expand...

Request.

Constantine Hanover has requested from the Justices of the Supreme Court, to submit Advisory Opinions to the Office of Legal Aid, on the proposed Foreign Treaties Act that is currently under consideration by the Parliament.

Reasoning.

--- Preface
Upon review, I have found several provisions of the Constitution which could speak to this proposed legislation. I have quoted some of them above for easy reference. I am going to try my best to ensure that my reasoning relegates itself into an order that makes sense, my apologies if you have a difficult time following along, because this answer is going to be less straightforward than some may like. You will find a summary of this opinion at the end of this document, that will hopefully make this all more easier to understand. -- For the rest of you that are willing to pay attention, come with me, and we will trek though the vast forest that is the Constitution of the Kingdom.

--- Legal Reasoning
When interpreting a Constitution, I find that you cannot limit your scope of inquiry into simply one section of the Constitution. Constitutions are by nature, documents that give themselves context when read as a whole. It is many the case that the articles and sections that make the Constitution rely on each other to create the system of governance that we have. You should not assume that the clauses of the Constitution stand alone, as there is more than likely, a restriction written into another section, in a different article. More or less, its like a game where each player has specific abilities, that can restrict or overrule other players, while confined within the circle of the game.

In this case the Constitution defines the parameters of the governing actors, and limits the actions of those same governing actors. It is clear that the Constitution is the highest law in the land, and that it is supreme and supersedes all other laws, excepting for those Imperial Decrees that the King issues to amend the Constitution. (Quote 1)

Thereby, if you take an action that is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, you are penalized. This is why the Constitution, operates on the principle of limited governance. The Constitution only provides for those actions which you are allowed to take. If an action is not listed, then it is an illegal and unconstitutional action. For instance, the Prime Minister has the ability to create and dissolve government ministries, however, that is only because the Constitution explicitly granted that ability (Article IV. Section E. Clause 2, KGB Constitution).

This principle is compounded over and confirmed by other sections of the Constitution. For instance, Section O, dictates that we must amend the Constitution prior to adopting a treaty, if provisions of the Constitution are going to be violated. Hence, the Constitution is again superior in its ability to even limit the scope of treaties that we sign together with foreign powers. (Quote 2)

Therefore, Royal Prerogatives, listed in Article II of sections D, E, & F; can only be exercised by the Crown, as stated, and thus make it unconstitutional to remove, restrict, regulate, revise, or relegate any of them by ordinary legislation.

Furthermore, if a governing actor is not explicitly stated to have a power or responsibility, then that governing actor cannot act in such manner.

--- Incompatibilities of the Bill

Provision 1: The Prime Minister, nor any cabinet or government officer, has been granted the ability to represent the Kingdom in Foreign Relations. All Ambassadors, are only accredited though the Monarch, and therefore all foreign relations must be handled by Their Majesties. (Quote 4)

Provision 2: The Prime Minister is only granted the powers conferred to him though Section E. There is no clause which enables Parliament to expand the power of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet. It is INCUMBENT on the Monarch and prerogative to sign treaties into force. The Prime Minster has no such ability. (Quotes 3, 4, & 7)

--- Compatibility of the Bill

Provision 3: The Parliament's Houses, do not originally have the right to debate or vote on the creation or acceptance of treaties. While Section O may allude to such an ability, it is not currently the case.

Clause G, of Houses rights, does speak to the ability to expand their powers though law. So, the creation of a procedure by law to determine the fate of a treaty, is entirely permissible. Especially since, such a vote wouldn't matter anyway, because the Monarch can sign it into law over their objections. (Quotes 4, 5, & 6).

Conclusion.

This Bill is in its majority, Unconstitutional, and in the personal opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, entirely useless, because the constitutional parts of the Bill simply re-affirm what the Constitution already mandates in the first place.

Summary.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the Land, and no action or law, can violate it. The King is entirely responsible for Foreign Affairs: from ambassadors, to negotiations, to approving the treaties. Even if Parliament did vote on said treaty, such a vote is an exercise in chamber opinion, and non-controlling, because the Monarch can sign the treaty into law, regardless of the outcome of said voting.

Advice.

I would like to advise His Majesty the King, and the Prime Minister, to look into ways of expanding the role of His Civil Government in Foreign Affairs via an Imperial Decree that amends the Constitution.

If Parliament would like to vote on a treaty, they can vote on either a seperate or joint Resolution in support or disbelief of said treaty. Although, I'll remind you that such resolutions have no force in law.