How important is it to us that our citizens follow the laws of the Constitution? If someone does not, is there a way we can encourage them to do so outside of asking nicely?
For me a one-time occurrence does not seem very important, because it could be the person did not know about the law, or forgot about it, or just made a mistake, or it was the result of a misunderstanding. For me when this becomes important is when somebody is repeatedly ignoring the Constitution, which would put them into a category of being "unfriendly to the principles of the CDS."
Perhaps a ten-year ostracism would be unduly hard on our community, which is itself not yet even five years old. However, I have found a similar provision in the Constitution already:
In NL 4-24, Defense of the Republic Act, it says "The Scientific Council are empowered to deny citizenship to a non-citizen if they have cause to believe that the non-citizen will not abide by the Constitution, founding documents and laws of the City." So, Jamie, it looks like the SC is already the keeper of this key. It then also says "Bars to citizenship must be time-limited and can be overturned by a 2/3 majority vote in the Representative Assembly."
I wonder how the SC would really know if it wanted to keep a non-citizen from becoming a citizen
Perhaps this existing law could be altered and updated in some form to include existing citizens who are clearly and repeatedly ignoring the laws of the community.
I did not know we had a ban on property confiscation until reading Jamie's post at the beginning of this thread. As a result, I looked through the legal codes at http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=codeoflaws trying to find it. The only direct reference to confiscation of property I found was:
In NL 9-2, Land Sales Reclamation Act § 5 it says "One calendar month after the due date, if the landowner has continued to fail to pay the full amount then overdue to CDS, then CDS shall send another notice to the landowner warning of imminent reclaimation (loss of the land). Fourteen days after that 1-month notice is sent, the CDS Executive Branch shall re-take ownership of the land, and the owner shall be removed from 'provisional citizen' status. The CDS Executive Branch may then dispose of the land by re-sale or otherwise in such manner as is consistent with our laws, and the landowner will lose any further interest in the parcel. All objects on the parcel at the time of reclaimation shall be returned, and a notice of the reclaimation sent to the landowner."
Is the ban on property confiscation in contradiction to this law, superseding it, or placing it on hold for a defined period of time? Or did Jamie, in his use of the word "property," mean the person's objects on the parcel?
I know, it might seem shameful for a member of the Representative Assembly to not be aware of all the laws herself,
but some of you might actually be glad to hear me admit I find it hard to know everything.
Please see my second paragraph above. ![Smile :)](./images/smilies/001-happy.svg)