Obscure passages in the Constitution regarding Citizenship

[Diderot Mirabeau]

It may be just me - and in fact it probably is - but do any of the readers of this forum grasp fully what is the intended meaning of the following provisions on citizenship in the Constitution:
[quote="The Constitution, Article VI - Citizenship":108msrh8]
Article VI - Citizenship

1. A citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators is a resident of SecondLife? who has been granted title to any land by the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, and who holds title under the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, for as long as he or she holds such title.

2. Without prejudice to any rule of law entitling any institution of government to substitute, or empower another person or body to substitute any land held by any citizen for any other land the holding of which would continue to entitle the person whose land has been substituted to be a citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, no citizen shall be deprived of citizenship in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, nor shall any person, whether a citizen or not, be banished from any public land in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, without trial in accordance with law, or consent not to be so tried.

3. Section 2 above is subject to any rule of law whereby a person is deemed to have consented not to be tried by having failed within reasonable time to respond or respond fully to any notice sent to that person in respect of any such prospective trial, nor any rule that specifies what shall constitute a reasonable time.

4. Section 2 above shall be without prejudice to any rule of law whereby a person may summarily be banished by any citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators appointed for such a purpose by any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly (or by any person or body deriving her his or its power to do so from any such Act), for up to fourteen consecutive days (but without revocation of citizenship or forfeiture of any asset).

5. Section 2 above shall be without prejudice to any rule of law whereby a person may be banished temporarily by Order of a Court of Common Jurisdiction pending such a trial as is mentioned therein (but without revocation of citizenship or forfeiture of any asset).

6. Any citizen may cease to become a citizen by submitting a notice in a form that may be prescribed by any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly (or, if no such form is specified, by notifying the Chancellor in writing) seven days in advance of the date on which that person is to cease to be a citizen.
[/quote:108msrh8]

I wanted to quote an old version of the citizenship article to show how simple it used to look but alas I am again unable to access the wiki.
EDIT: I managed to get access to the wiki through another DNS. This is what the clauses on citizenship used to look like:
[quote="Old Constitution":108msrh8]Section 1 - Eligibility

Citizens must agree to uphold the constitution. Citizens are those persons who own private land in sims subject to the city government.

Section 2 - Discharge

Citizens must give a one-week notice before leaving the group or removing land tiers. In return the city guarantees a hearing and a one-week grace period before revoking citizenship. Citizenship may be revoked for violation of city laws or covenants, failure to uphold the constitution, or non payment of land fees.

Section 3 - Departure Ultimatums

Citizens are may not issue departure ultimatums to members of the government. In return the government will not issue discharge ultimatums to citizens. [/quote:108msrh8]
While this is obviously not perfect either and definitely dated (nobody donates tier anymore, what is "a hearing" and what does "subject to city government" actually mean?) I think this latter approach at least has the benefit of being readable.

I'd be thrilled if somebody who understands the current text as quoted in the above could publish an outline of what each clause actually means and does, and if somebody on the basis of that was able to redraft the language to be of the sort that even I could understand with a minimum amount of effort I might be so impressed I'd be going through the roof.

Seriously though, I think the above is a good illustration of the need to introduce a constitutional revision with the aim of making more accessible the text of the Constitution. The Simplicity Party stands for just this policy so I hope that a majority of the RA can agree to put such an effort into the legislative programme of this term.

[michelmanen]

[quote:2kzje6zc]1. A citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators is a resident of SecondLife who has been granted title to any land by the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, and who holds title under the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, for as long as he or she holds such title.
[/quote:2kzje6zc]

Makes land-holding the basis of CDS Citizenship. Also sets basis for legal enforceability of judgements.

Possible redraft:

[b:2kzje6zc]1. A citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators is a SecondLife resident who owns any land in the CDS or the equivalent as determined by CDS legislation.[/b:2kzje6zc]

This takes out some legal jargon, allows for non-land ownership based citizenship, and leaves it up to future legislatures to define, if necessary, in a future CDS Citizenship Act, the meaning of "owns any land in the CDS or the equivalent" as well as the situations when citizenship may be revoked.

[quote:2kzje6zc]
2. [i:2kzje6zc]Without prejudice to any rule of law entitling any institution of government to substitute, or empower another person or body to substitute any land held by any citizen for any other land the holding of which would continue to entitle the person whose land has been substituted to be a citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators[/i:2kzje6zc], [u:2kzje6zc]no citizen shall be deprived of citizenship in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, nor shall any person, whether a citizen or not, be banished from any public land in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators[/u:2kzje6zc], without trial in accordance with law, or consent not to be so tried.[/quote:2kzje6zc]

Allows the CDS to subsitute, by legislative, judicial or executive means, any piece of land owned by a citizen to another as long as this does not deprive him or her of citizensip.

Establishes the general rule: no citizen shall be deprived of citizenship in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, nor shall any person, whether a citizen or not, be banished from any public land in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators.

Allows for the exception of revoking citizenship privileges by trial or consent not to be tried. Reinforces judicial enforceability powers.

Possible redraft: [b:2kzje6zc] 2. No citizen shall be deprived of citizenship in the CDS, nor shall any person, whether a citizen or not, be banished from any public land therein, without due legal process.[/b:2kzje6zc]

This establishes the general rule and allows for any legal process as determined by legislative or judicial means as legal to revoke citizenship. and allows a possible future CDS Citizenship Act or Judicial Act, what "due legal process" entails, including any land substitution issues or consent not to be tried. This shows that, if we want to keep the Constitution simple and readable, we must adopt equivalent clarifying legislation ( a Citizenship Act and a Judicial Act).

[quote:2kzje6zc]3. Section 2 above is subject to any rule of law whereby a person is deemed to have consented not to be tried by having failed within reasonable time to respond or respond fully to any notice sent to that person in respect of any such prospective trial, nor any rule that specifies what shall constitute a reasonable time.[/quote:2kzje6zc]

Allows for judicial enforceability of due legal process, including situations when individuals fail to comply with our legal process when taken to court.

In my opinion, this is covered in the "due legal process" part of Section 2 and can be further defined by a future Citizenship Act or Judicial Act).

[quote:2kzje6zc]4. Section 2 above shall be without prejudice to any rule of law whereby a person may summarily be banished by any citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators appointed for such a purpose by any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly (or by any person or body deriving her his or its power to do so from any such Act), for up to fourteen consecutive days (but without revocation of citizenship or forfeiture of any asset).[/quote:2kzje6zc]

This allows for temporary banishiment by executive fiat as authorised by the legislature, but restricts full banishment and citizenship revocation powers to the CDS Courts.

Again, this important principle upholding both executive powers of temporary banishment and rule of law issues holding that no citizen can fe permanently banished or deprived of citizenship without having his or her day in court (or choosing not to) is covered by the
"due legal process" subclause in S. 2, provided the latter is more specifically defined to include the meaning of S. 4 above in a future Citizenship Act or Judicial Act.

[quote:2kzje6zc]
5. Section 2 above shall be without prejudice to any rule of law whereby a person may be banished temporarily by Order of a Court of Common Jurisdiction pending such a trial as is mentioned therein (but without revocation of citizenship or forfeiture of any asset).[/quote:2kzje6zc]

This allows for Judicial powers of temporary banishment, pending trial. Again, in my opinion, this is covered by the
"due legal process" subclause in S. 2, provided the latter is more specifically defined to include the intent of S. 5 above in a future Citizenship Act or Judicial Act.

[quote:2kzje6zc]
6. Any citizen may cease to become a citizen by submitting a notice in a form that may be prescribed by any duly ratified Act of the Representative Assembly (or, if no such form is specified, by notifying the Chancellor in writing) seven days in advance of the date on which that person is to cease to be a citizen. [/quote:2kzje6zc]

Establishes the principle and rules under which a Citizen may renounce citizenship in the CDS, and the seven-day notice rule.

Possible redraft: [b:2kzje6zc]3. Any citizen may renounce citizenship in the CDS after complying with CDS citizenship notice requirements.[/b:2kzje6zc]

This upholds the general principle that no citizen wil cease to be a citizen withought giving proper notice, and leaves it open to future legislative action to define (and amend, without going through constitutional amendment procedures) what exactly the "CDS citizenship notice requirements" in a future Citizenship Act or Judicial Act.

Conclusion: Provided the incoming RA passes accopanying legislation defining and claryfing the matters and issues raised above in a future Citizenship Act or Judicial Act, the citizenship section of the Constitution could read as follows:

[b:2kzje6zc]1. A citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators is a SecondLife resident who owns any land in the CDS or the equivalent as determined by CDS legislation.

2. No citizen shall be deprived of citizenship in the CDS, nor shall any person, whether a citizen or not, be banished from any public land therein, without due legal process.

3. Any citizen may renounce citizenship in the CDS after complying with CDS citizenship notice requirements.[/b:2kzje6zc]

[Diderot Mirabeau]

[quote="michelmanen":ovpzw5yb]Conclusion: Provided the incoming RA passes accopanying legislation defining and claryfing the matters and issues raised above in a future Citizenship Act or Judicial Act, the citizenship section of the Constitution could read as follows:

[b:ovpzw5yb]1. A citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators is a SecondLife resident who owns any land in the CDS or the equivalent as determined by CDS legislation.

2. No citizen shall be deprived of citizenship in the CDS, nor shall any person, whether a citizen or not, be banished from any public land therein, without due legal process.

3. Any citizen may renounce citizenship in the CDS after complying with CDS citizenship notice requirements.[/b:ovpzw5yb][/quote:ovpzw5yb]
That's [b:ovpzw5yb]much[/b:ovpzw5yb] better Michel - thanks for doing the work on this. I imagine your contribution could beneficially be submitted to a Commission appointed by the RA to oversee the re-drafting of the entire text of the Constitution using when necessary a simplified phrasing and following a more consistent structure.

Michel - would the CARE party be able to support the Simplicity proposal to do this kind of sterling work on the rest of the Constitution as it is deemed to be necessary?

[michelmanen]

Yes- provided we agree on accompanying legislation, such as a Citizenship Act and Judiciary Act, that set out in full a comprehensive, open, accountable, fair and legitimate juridico-political order for the CDS.

[Diderot Mirabeau]

[quote="michelmanen":1zdfsi4l]Yes- provided we agree on accompanying legislation, such as a Citizenship Act and Judiciary Act, that set out in full a comprehensive, open, accountable, fair and legitimate juridico-political order for the CDS.[/quote:1zdfsi4l]
Excellent! Let me float this proposal then:
[quote="The Constitutional Revison Bill":1zdfsi4l]
1) The RA will establish a Constitutional Revision Commission, which will work through a period of 3 months to produce a report of recommendations including the following:

a) Proposing and inserting as a supplementary part of the founding philosophy a vision for what we want our society to be.

b) Going through the constitution and revising each article with a view to simplifying the language to make it accessible to everyone.

c) Identifying parts of the constitution, which can be feasibly be taken out and if necessary elaborated upon in a seperate act.

d) Identifying parts of the constitution that could favourably be afforded extra protection in the form of 'entrenchment'.

2) The commission will be manned with one representative from every faction sitting in the RA and every recommendation made by the commission must be backed by a number of representatives equal to that required for a constitutional amendment.[/quote:1zdfsi4l]

Do you have any suggestions for amendments?

[michelmanen]

(Diderot's comment: I've made a terrible mistake here: once again I have wrongly pressed "edit" instead of "reply" - the two buttons are just next to each other - and I have therefore wholly wrongfully edited Michel's posting instead of replying to it. The below is therefore my reply to Michel's original post instead of Michel's own words. I apologise unreservedly for once again making such a mistake and I promise to put he matter before my colleages at the SC in order for them to discuss what can be done to recity this ongoing failing of mine. In my defense I hope it can be said that it was an honest mistake with no malicious intent. I have tried to make the error good again by putting in quotes what was said by me. Sadly I cannot recover Michel's full text but I remember it beginning with him describing the process he would need to go through in order for him to obtain mandate for a policy position through the inclusive process of the CARE faction)

[quote="michelmanen":3jvnlzpx]in my opinion, the Commission must be open to all citizens, not just RA members[/quote:3jvnlzpx]
[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3jvnlzpx]I agree entirely - this was also the intended effect of the phrasing - in so far as they are nominated by a faction represented in the RA and selected to speak on behalf of the faction in the commission. Were we only to allow RA members to sit in our Commissions then the poor members would soon be bogged down in work. We have to constantly remind ourselves that we are indeed relying on 'an economy of voluntarism'.[/quote:3jvnlzpx]
[quote="michelmanen":3jvnlzpx]the accompanying legislation must be enacted at the same time as any changes to the actual constitution, as a comprehensive a nd coherent package[/quote:3jvnlzpx]
[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3jvnlzpx]I agree that this would be necessary in so far as an amendment takes out specific functionality from the constitution but I think maybe it needs to be assessed on a case by case basis.[/quote:3jvnlzpx]
[quote="michelmanen":3jvnlzpx]and the entire legislative package must be submitted to a public referendum before being voted on by the RA.[/quote:3jvnlzpx]
[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3jvnlzpx]Hmm - interesting idea. I can't remember if we managed to establish a procedure for referendums. I don't think so though. Is there a principle behind prefering the package to be submitted to a referendum - i.e. one that would apply in other matters of policy decisions as well?[/quote:3jvnlzpx]

[Claude Desmoulins]

First of all. NL 5-21 creates a mechanism, modeled on the Judiciary Commission, for the RA to create special commissions with open participation. Also, if you put one member of each faction on the constitution commission, you essentially create an extraordinary RA meeting. This concerns me

I'm leery of large omnibus bills. While I understand the desire to do it in one swoop , and the concern that different reforms might be interdependent, the only example we have of a large, single, sweeping reform is the Judiciary Act. I think its fair to say that our experience with the JA doesn't provide an endorsement for the all at once model.

Finally the referendum issue. In previous sessions we have come very close to agreement on a referendum process for constitutional amendment ratification. The unresolved issues seem to be

1) How frequently can referenda be called?
2) Is all of the constitution subject to the same approval thresholds for change?

A key point of the existing compromises is that the referendum is the last step in the process. There are, I believe, two reasons for this:

1. You want the SC to look at the proposal before any referendum so that you don't go to the hassle of holding one, only to then have the SC block the amendment.

2. If you do as Michel proposes and place the referendum before RA approval, the RA is then irrelevant to the process. They either rubber stamp what the citizens have already approved, or they vote their consciences and face voter wrath. Either way they essentially have their legislative role usurped by the commission (especially if things are done as one big package) We already have a group that can block constitutional change based on their consciences, the SC. They are protected from popular passion.

My preference would be as follows:

1. Do things in chunks rather than all at once. They can be big chunks. I think the bill that created the chancellor last term is a good example of the appropriate scale.

2. If you want a commission, have it recommend back to the RA. Then the RA approves the changes, then the SC and only then do they go to referendum. The creation of a referendum step will itself require a constitutional amendment, I would think.

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="michelmanen":2uby9wvw]Possible redraft:

[b:2uby9wvw]1. A citizen of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators is a SecondLife resident who owns any land in the CDS or the equivalent as determined by CDS legislation.[/b:2uby9wvw]

This takes out some legal jargon, [b:2uby9wvw]allows for non-land ownership based citizenship[/b:2uby9wvw], and leaves it up to future legislatures to define, if necessary, in a future CDS Citizenship Act, the meaning of "owns any land in the CDS or the equivalent" as well as the situations when citizenship may be revoked. (my emphasis in bold)[/quote:2uby9wvw]I'd just like to point out that altering the constitution to allow for non-land ownership based citizenship is a major change. This idea has been debated in the past and rejected. The effect of passing a Constitutional Amendment along these lines would be to allow the RA to pass an ordinary bill by majority vote to grant citizenship to anyone for any reason. (Whatever would 'or the equivalent' constitute?)

Before we make such a major change to our Constitution we should debate the merits of this proposal.

Perhaps this was an unintentional effect of Michel's suggested redraft? It was my understanding, from Diderot's original post, that the objective here was to make the Constitution easier to understand, not to make major revisions to issues such as citizenship.

[michelmanen]

Pat,

We already are doing this by means of conferring citizenship to gifted builders through Guild membership. All this does is to allow for the legislature to do so - it does not madate that it does.

In short, it gives the RA more leeway to adapt and change as it pushes forward with its vision for the CDS without amending the Constitution each time it wishes to do so.

Remember, the goal of this possible redrafting is to come up with a simple, readable, relatively short document that sets our the framework of our system of govenance and does not need to be tampered with every month- or even every legislature.

And of course we would discuss, debate and consult on this with the citizenship at large.

Michel

[michelmanen]

Claude,

[quote:1wsotf0n]First of all. NL 5-21 creates a mechanism, modeled on the Judiciary Commission, for the RA to create special commissions with open participation. Also, if you put one member of each faction on the constitution commission, you essentially create an extraordinary RA meeting. This concerns me[/quote:1wsotf0n]

Fine. Let the entire RA sit on it. The process could be as follows:

1. The RA-as-Commision (R-C) prepares a Draft Constitution (DC).
2. The RA prepares a Guide to the DC, distributes it to all citizens, holds small-group discussion seesions headed by one RA member each to actually allow citizens to discuss and debate it, not jsut make a rushed 5 minute statement.
3. The R-C recovenes and makes any necessary changes to the DC.
4. The DC is introduced as a Bill (First Reading).
5. Thea heads of all branches of government discuss it and make any suggestions they may see fit.
6. The RA introduces the (possibly) revised DC (Second Reading).
7. The CDS citizens are asked a simple question: "Do authorize the RA to enact the DC"? Yes or No.
8. The RA then votes on the DC (Third Reading); adoptioon will require a constitutional amendment majority. The Referendum should be advisory in nature, so the RA can go against its results if it deems it necessary -with, of course, the expected popular backlah. That's normal. We're a democracy. If the RA feels it must go against popular opinion as expressed in a referendum, it should be plainly clear for all to see.

I do think that all constitutional amendments should follow this procedure. Once a adopt (if we do) the DC, we should treat consitutional amendmens as a rare and extraordinary procedure -not something to engage in lightly or often.

[quote:1wsotf0n]I'm leery of large omnibus bills. While I understand the desire to do it in one swoop , and the concern that different reforms might be interdependent, the only example we have of a large, single, sweeping reform is the Judiciary Act. I think its fair to say that our experience with the JA doesn't provide an endorsement for the all at once model.[/quote:1wsotf0n]

We would not have a large omnibus bill. We would first have a Referendum Act, then we would have at the same time a DC, a Citizenship Act, a Judiciary Act, a Legislative Act, and a Guild Act. Each would be introduced and discussed separately by the RA -but for reasons of coherence, all changes in one wil be ,if necessary, reflected in all the others.

All bills could then by submitted, as a package, to the people in a rferendum, as a package, then come back to the RA for final votes on each individual bill (constitutional majority of the SC, simple majority for the rest).

[quote:1wsotf0n]Finally the referendum issue. In previous sessions we have come very close to agreement on a referendum process for constitutional amendment ratification. The unresolved issues seem to be

1) How frequently can referenda be called?[/quote:1wsotf0n]

My feeling is once per session, at the 4-month mark. This gives all enough time to discuss and prepare for it and the RA enough time to enact it (or not) before election fever hits. There may be more than one question asked (for example, the RA wants to go aheas with a constitutional amendment, and there is also a citizen-initiated movment for a referendum on term limits for RA members). Both questions are submitted at the same time and are answerable by yes/no answers.

2) Is all of the constitution subject to the same approval thresholds for change?

Yes. Thats why it's the Constitution. We want to tamper with it as little as possible one we have (if we do) a good CD and the RA enacts it as described above.

[quote:1wsotf0n]A key point of the existing compromises is that the referendum is the last step in the process. There are, I believe, two reasons for this:

1. You want the SC to look at the proposal before any referendum so that you don't go to the hassle of holding one, only to then have the SC block the amendment.[/quote:1wsotf0n]

That's step 5 of the process above. Your concern is exactly why that step is there.

[quote:1wsotf0n]2. If you do as Michel proposes and place the referendum before RA approval, the RA is then irrelevant to the process. They either rubber stamp what the citizens have already approved, or they vote their consciences and face voter wrath. Either way they essentially have their legislative role usurped by the commission (especially if things are done as one big package) We already have a group that can block constitutional change based on their consciences, the SC. They are protected from popular passion.[/quote:1wsotf0n]

The RA is clearly not irrelvant to the process I outlined above. But it makes the entire exercise, open, participative, deliberative, inclusive and accountable. There is no competition between the various bodies (RA, Commission, SC etc) - it is a common, delibarative process. At the end, the RA is free to vote as it wishes - and assume its responsibilities acordingly.

My preference would be as follows:

[quote:1wsotf0n]1. Do things in chunks rather than all at once. They can be big chunks. I think the bill that created the chancellor last term is a good example of the appropriate scale.[/quote:1wsotf0n]

See my comments above. I do not think I personally would approve any DC without assurances as to the final contents of a Citizenship Act, a Judiciary Act, a Legislative Act, and a Guild Act. The RA can still vote freely on each.

[quote:1wsotf0n]2. If you want a commission, have it recommend back to the RA. Then the RA approves the changes, then the SC and only then do they go to referendum. The creation of a referendum step will itself require a constitutional amendment, I would think.[/quote:1wsotf0n]

See my detailed procedure above, which does exactly that.
And yes, we would need a Referendum Act first, before we do anything else.

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="michelmanen":kzapx0hp]We already are doing this by means of conferring citizenship to gifted builders through Guild membership. All this does is to allow for the legislature to do so - it does not madate that it does.[/quote:kzapx0hp]Michel, I've tried to find the threads where this was discussed but they must be a bit old now. My recollection was that the debate had not reached any firm conclusions. I think there are some significant problems with ideas which short-circuit the requirement to purchase and hold land as a requirement for citizenship. At the very least we need to dust off the threads which dealt with this before enacting anything.

[quote:kzapx0hp]In short, it gives the RA more leeway to adapt and change as it pushes forward with its vision for the CDS without amending the Constitution each time it wishes to do so.[/quote:kzapx0hp]That's the main problem! Your proposal would allow the RA to define citizenship in any way it saw fit with a simple majority. This kind of 'Enabling Act' is not a constitutional tidying up exercise but a radical departure. It can't simply be slipped in under the guise of 'making things clearer'.

[michelmanen]

Pat,

No one is talking about slipping this under anyhing. Please see my detailed reply to Claude above. It includes a very detailed, open, participative, accountable process.

As for the majorityrequired in practice, at this time we would need 3 votes of out five instead of 4 out of five. The one additional vote does not, in my opinion, provide a substantial additional safeguard. That is why I propose that constitutional amendments be rare, carefully prepared, and submitted to popular referendums.

All countries modify their citizenship rules from time to time without constitutional amendments. I do not see why having the flexibility to do so if circumstances warrant it would pose a problem, nor why the specific criteria of citizenship should be of a constitutional nature, given the checks and balances (existing now or in the future) in our legislative process.

Michel

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3f71uk0w]Seriously though, I think the above is a good illustration of the need to introduce a constitutional revision with the aim of making more accessible the text of the Constitution. The Simplicity Party stands for just this policy so I hope that a majority of the RA can agree to put such an effort into the legislative programme of this term.[/quote:3f71uk0w]Michel-
The intent of Diderot's post was clearly to make the text more accessible not to fundamentally alter the constitutional settlement.

We can do either. Let's decide if we want to simply make things easier to understand or carry out a root-and-branch review of the Constitution.
[quote="Michel Manen":3f71uk0w]All countries modify their citizenship rules from time to time without constitutional amendments. I do not see why having the flexibility to do so if circumstances warrant it would pose a problem, nor why the specific criteria of citizenship should be of a constitutional nature, given the checks and balances (existing now or in the future) in our legislative process. [/quote:3f71uk0w]Currently, that kind of change requires a constitutional amendment. If you want to change that you need to come up with some good arguments, backed up with evidence, for why that change is needed. I am sure you weren't trying to be underhand, my point is that the discussion is about simplification and you have proposed a fundamental change. That's fine if we're having a root-and-branch reform but my understanding was that Diderot's intentions were more limited.

[Justice Soothsayer]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":2kl2lu7e][quote="michelmanen":2kl2lu7e]We already are doing this by means of conferring citizenship to gifted builders through Guild membership. All this does is to allow for the legislature to do so - it does not madate that it does.[/quote:2kl2lu7e]Michel, I've tried to find the threads where this was discussed but they must be a bit old now. My recollection was that the debate had not reached any firm conclusions. I think there are some significant problems with ideas which short-circuit the requirement to purchase and hold land as a requirement for citizenship. At the very least we need to dust off the threads which dealt with this before enacting anything.

[quote:2kl2lu7e]In short, it gives the RA more leeway to adapt and change as it pushes forward with its vision for the CDS without amending the Constitution each time it wishes to do so.[/quote:2kl2lu7e]That's the main problem! Your proposal would allow the RA to define citizenship in any way it saw fit with a simple majority. This kind of 'Enabling Act' is not a constitutional tidying up exercise but a radical departure. It can't simply be slipped in under the guise of 'making things clearer'.[/quote:2kl2lu7e]
I think the disucssion was with regard to creating a foundation which could hold land in a group, whereby the "starving artists" could be given citizenship for a time, as our statutes allow group ownership of land with the possibility of one citizenship for every 128m2.

The debate, as I recall, also included whether such a foundation should be non-governmental or an action of the RA.

[michelmanen]

Yes.. but for all intents and purposes, it creates citizneship based on criteria other than land ownership, since the Guild is a public or at least non-private organization, while private groups remain just that.. private...

I suggest we streamline all this and make it into a coherent system, rather than built by ad hoc decisions that dont necessarily fit in well together...