[Private] R4R on timing of oaths

[Eluvatar]

I see no reason not to accept this one, though it's a very minimally defunct ruling afaict

 

[Pallaith]

I see no reason not to accept this one, though it's a very minimally defunct ruling afaict

Remember, any Justice can accept R4Rs. If you think there’s no reason not to accept it then accept it.

 

[Eluvatar]

It was my impression that we like to check in before doing that. Accepting.

 

[Pallaith]

It was my impression that we like to check in before doing that. Accepting.

The Court has been doing that the last few years but it’s been observed that if we effectively have an informal vote on it, it complicates the potential for appeal. I am swayed by that argument. I do believe if the issue is thorny or ambiguous it doesn’t hurt for us to bounce the idea off each other first though.

 

[Eluvatar]

Enjoy:

---

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by TlomzKrano on 'On the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding'
Opinion drafted by Justice Eluvatar, joined by Chief Justice Attempted Socialism and Justice Pallaith​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by TlomzKrano

The Court took into consideration the relevant portion of the Constitution of The North Pacific.

Article 3: The Delegate and Vice Delegate
13. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.

The Court took into consideration the prior rulings by the Court On the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding, On Oath Violations by Former Members of the Regional Assembly, On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, and On Defunct Rulings

---

The Court opines the following:

On Standing
The petitioner is the Court Examiner, and enjoys universal standing for all questions before this Court. There is no question of proper standing in this case.

On the Court’s Prior Ruling
This Court is asked to reconsider one of its prior rulings in light of a change that was made to the legal code since that opinion was delivered. That ruling, On the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding, was concerned with defining the scope of application of the citizenship oath in time (when is one bound by it?). In applying the Court's test as outlined in On Defunct Rulings, we conclude that the Court's ruling was correct at the time. It is consistent with current law in all respects but the timing of automatic citizenship: at the time, 14 days without rejection meant automatic admission to citizenship. Today, the law requires applications to be processed within 7 days. As the ruling explicitly references 14 days, that part of the ruling is defunct.

Holding
As the case was properly decided and the Court's consideration of the time when the citizenship oath is binding, including its application of On Oath Violations by Former Members of the Regional Assembly, is consistent with existing Constitutional and legal language and affirmed again by this decision, we find that only a narrow portion of our prior ruling On the Time at Which Oaths Become Binding, concerning the application of the oath after 14 days without acceptance or rejection, is now defunct as precedent. Therefore, that portion of the ruling ("14 days") will be modified with strikethrough tags, acknowledging its obsolescence while preserving it for historical purposes.

 

[Pallaith]

I have no problem with this draft, I would only wonder if this is an opportunity for us to nudge future opinions to avoid being overly specific? For instance if the original ruling had simply specified it would apply to the automatic citizenship period, and explicitly said something like “which is currently 14 days” then we wouldn’t have needed to defunct it. Sometimes the ruling has to be specific to the law as it is but this is a case where the decision didn’t have to commit to that specificity. Maybe this ruling doesn’t have to say anything about this, but I think we should aim for moving away from writing rulings like this one. Saves future Tlomzs from having to ask us these.

 

[Eluvatar]

@Attempted Socialism ?

 

[Attempted Socialism]

Like Pallaith I am on board on the substance. I don't think a general comment on specificity does a lot here, though. Not against it, but if we want to make a difference for future Courts I think it should go in some general guide for the Court.
There are a few minor things (grammar and punctuation )in the text as it currently stands that I would like to go over. I'll see if I can do it in the next couple of hours, but otherwise it may be as late as Friday before I can get to it.

 

[Attempted Socialism]

I think Pallaith got the things I had noticed. At least they're correct now. So I sign on as-is.