Ruling [Question] Granting Official

[Domais]

This question comes from the Lazarene Citizenship Act (https://www.nslazarus.com/thread-1254.html), it has to do with the Granting Official:

1. Is the advice the Granting Official gives to the Delegate commital?
2. Can the Delegate process citizenship applications in the absence of advice from the Granting Official?
3. Is the answer the same in question 2 if there is no Granting Official?
4. Does the Prime Minister have veto power over the Granting Official?

Thanks,
- Dom.

 

[Frankender]

Good questions have been raised here. Why has this been ignored? It is unacceptable to blame the number of Justices. If the number of Justices is the problem, we need to make an amendment to the constitution to allow the courts to operate with limited Justices.

I implore the courts to at least acknowledge these questions, or the Assembly should move for a vote of no confidence in the current Justices.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Firstly, this is a thread is more than a year old, and there were different justices entirely when this was raised.

Secondly, this is Domais' thread, so it is their decision whether this thread goes forward.

You could create your own thread with similar questions, or DM any of our justices on discord to notify them of the thread.

It also doesn't require an amendment, when the only requirement is that two-thirds of justices present for the vote agree. So reducing the number of required justices would run into an issue that one justice could decide serious constitutional issues without the others.

I have notified the justices, so they should be able to answer this when they get time during the week.

 

[Frankender]

Secondly, this is Domais' thread, so it is their decision whether this thread goes forward.

You could create your own thread with similar questions, or DM any of our justices on discord to notify them of the thread.

Sounds like an unnecessary solution to something that isn't even a problem in the first place.

 

[Domais]

Bump

 

[Ryccia]

The Court has taken notice of this question, and has decided to take it under consideration. A ruling shall be issued in due course. Amicus briefs from the public are welcome.

 

[Wymondham]

The court wishes to request that @New Rogernomics answer the below question as the earliest possible opportunity

Was the Citizenship Act written with the intent of blocking the acceptance or refusal of citizenship applications when the office of granting official is vacant?

 

[New Rogernomics]

The court wishes to request that @New Rogernomics answer the below question as the earliest possible opportunity

The Citizenship Act was written with the position that this represents the official procedure for the acceptance or refusal of applications, so while it is possible for a Delegate to admit a citizen without first hearing the opinion of the Granting Official, this is something to be discouraged, as it breaks with the procedural steps to decide upon citizenship. It was written with the intent of acknowledging that the Delegate ultimately had the sole power to grant or refuse citizenship as is in the mandate, and that a Delegate could break with procedure if they wished, but that this would be not ideal, as the intent of the act was to provide government input into all citizenship applications, and in effect for the Granting Official to be charged with immigration duties.

In terms of the Granting Official being in office, the intent of the act was to have a granting official in place while applications are processed, in order for all the procedural steps to be followed with the granting and refusal of citizenship.

There was an incident this year, where a past Granting Official had left office, and Citizenship was approved by the Delegate, through a procedural error. That error being the Delegate taking the advice of the previous Granting Official, when that granting official was technically no longer in that office. Here is the link to that: https://nslazarus.com/forum/index.php?threads/3494/

The next Granting Official approved this citizenship advice, and this procedural error was resolved. Though obviously we would not want to repeat this in the future, as it conflicts with the normal procedures outlined in the Citizenship Act. Though as I mentioned the Delegate still has the option to approve Citizenship without the Granting Official, but this is strongly discouraged as it breaks with the procedure.

TLDR; If it is an outright block, no, as that might conflict with the mandate i.e. powers of the Delegate to grant or refuse citizenship. It is something to be discouraged or not ideal in the intent of the act however, as this provides the procedures for granting/refusing citizenship, which includes a granting official being present in this process.

 

[Chanku]

The Court hereby Unanimously Agrees on the following Opinion, Authored by myself:

1. Is the advice the Granting Official gives to the Delegate committal?
No, the Lazarene Citizenship Act (LCA) does not explicitly state it is, nor does the language used by the law imply such.
Advice and Recommendations are just that, and are not binding. Therefore no committal or binding occurs with the advice.

2. Can the Delegate process citizenship applications in the absence of advice from the Granting Official?
No. The law is quite clear that there is a process. Article I, Section 5 states as follows:

(5) The Granting Official shall then advise the Delegate on an application, who shall then permit or decline citizenship.

The delegate processing the application can only occur once the sitting Granting Official advises the Delegate.

4. Does the Prime Minister have veto power over the Granting Official?
No. The authority vested into the Granting Official is granted only by statute. The Lazarene Citizenship Act solely grants the Granting Official the rights, responsibilities and powers and no other government official or individual

In addition the court has unanimously agreed to issue the following:

3. Is the answer the same in question 2 if there is no Granting Official?
No. in the absence of a Granting Official the Delegate may process applications. The court does note that only the holding was unanimously agreed upon by the Court, and instead the Justices split on the dicta. With this, the Court recommends the Assembly amend the Lazarene Citizenship Act to better express its intent, and it releases the following opinions to guide the Assembly.

Despite the wording of the Lazarene Citizenship Act, upon a questioning of the author, it is likely that the intention of the Assembly was not to prevent the Delegate from processing Applications in the absence of a Granting Official. Therefore, holding such is not impermissible. As such I hold that a lack of a Granting Official does not block the Delegate from processing Applications.

Question 3 asks the court whether the Delegate may process an application for Citizenship when the post of Granting Official is left unfilled. To guide one's decision on this matter, there are 2 statues which merit inspection, Mandate 12 ("the Mandate" & the Lazarene Citizenship Act. Namely Article II, Section (4) of Mandate 12 & the entirety of Article I of the Lazarene Citizenship Act. Article II, Section (4) of the Mandate reads as follows

(4) The Delegate may admit residents of Lazarus to citizenship. Further procedure for citizenship admission, including procedure for appealing rejection of a citizenship application by the Delegate, criteria residents must meet in order to be admitted as citizens as well as criteria for maintenance of citizenship and enforcement of such criteria, may be established by law.

Ostensibly there is a conflict between the first and last sentences of Section (4) in that while the first sentence clearly grants the Delegate broad power over admitting residents to citizenship, the latter sentence implicitly limits the delegate's power over admitting residents to citizenship by enclosing said power within such boundaries as the assembly may demarcate via statue. To resolve this apparent contradiction, one must take the section as a whole and adopt a "best fit" approach; with this in mind the logical effect of II, (4) is as follows - that the Delegate has broad power over the issue of admitting residents to citizenship only where said power is not limited by statue or procedure enacted by the assembly. I believe that Question 3 diverges from Question 2 in that Question 3 presents a scenario where the procedure proscribed by statue cannot occur; in this case because the office of Granting Official is unfilled. The office of Granting Official being filled is required for the procedure proscribed by the Lazarene Citizenship Act to occur, without a Granting Official the procedure is rendered inoperative and it becomes permissible to derogate from said procedure. As the Mandate is superior to the Lazarene Citizenship Act, the natural direction in which to derogate is towards the citizenship. Thus, as the Lazarene Citizenship Act would be rendered inoperative, we must consider the Mandate and thus II, (4). My interpretation of II, (4) was made clear in the previous paragraph; as the the procedure proscribed by the assembly is rendered legally inoperative, the boundaries on the delegate's power are extinguished until the office of Granting Official is fulfilled. Therefore, for as long as the office of Granting Official is left unoccupied, it is permissible for the delegate to process Citizenship Applications of their own accord until the office of Granting Official is once again filled. At this point, the boundaries to the Delegate's power over granting Citizenship created by the Lazarene Citizenship Act would be re-erected and the procedure would once again become binding on the Delegate.

Power is the basis of all political and governmental action. If there are no lawmakers to make law, then legislation cannot be passed. If there are no judges in a court, trials cannot be conducted, nor constitutional interpretations be made. The political and administrative offices that have tangible, legal power to affect the state of affairs of the region must be paid attention to. The Granting Official is clearly not one of these offices. As an advisor, the Granting Official has no actual power to speak of, only to have their words be considered by the Delegate. One may leap to the erroneous conclusion that the absence of a Granting Official would halt all citizenship application procedures. However, we must remember the nature of the position: yes, the Granting Official can force the Delegate to listen to their advice, but if the Delegate opts to go against their words, what happens? Exactly: absolutely nothing. The Delegate is forced by law to hear the advice of the Granting Official, but there is not even the smallest inkling of an implication that the words of the Granting Official are commands that the Delegate must follow. Unlike the Assembly, whose consent is required to create and pass legislation, and unlike the courts, who are required to administer justice, the Granting Official’s consent is not required for anything. If a Granting Official does not exist, there is no administrative barrier that their absence is imposing, as the Delegate ultimately retains the sole right to accept or deny citizenship applications. Words, if not substantiated by power, are just that: words. Mere musings spoken into the air, soundwaves without much raw power, if at all. Words persuade, power forces its will. Therefore, if there is no Granting Official to counsel, it is as if nothing had been said. The law does not clearly define what occurs if the position of the Granting Official is vacant. Therefore, we must go to the roots of the office and look at what power it has, what, in its most essential form, it can impact with its will, not its persuasion. Officially, it has no power, no effect, and as such the absence of such official is no impediment to this bureaucratic process. The Assembly creates laws. The courts enforce and interpret the laws. Nothing cannot create, enforce nor interpret something.
To use a coding analogy, the "code", which is the text of the law, can force something to occur. Power is what enables the code to continue running, with its deviations and eventual conclusions. The Granting Official has no raw power, and as such it is merely the "commentary" of the code that commands the law. Commentary in a code may be useful, but it is, ultimately, irrelevant to how the code itself runs. You can read it and decide to heed or ignore it. If it isn't there, the code keeps running anyway.