Delegate WA Requirement Amendment

A few thoughts:

1)You call this an act but it’s a constitutional amendment. I actually wonder if this needs to be a constitutional amendment, but I suppose it doesn’t make a ton of difference either way.

2)I think this amendment has the opportunity to nip an annoying loophole in the bud, and in the process would improve the wording of this amendment, which I’m not a fan of. I would suggest the following:

“...a Member of the World Assembly. No nation may declare candidacy for office or be a candidate if they are not a Citizen, and, in the case of the Delegacy, have not been a Member of the World Assembly for at least a month prior to declaring their candidacy.”

I like the parallel construction and the fact that we would not be conflating requirements for holding office with eligibility to run for office. They are distinct despite probably never conflicting with each other, though obviously the infamous run for office but not be able to hold it loophole would not even be on the radar. This would also add teeth to the legal code provision that allows us to throw invalid candidates off the ballot, since currently its ambiguous if it would even be enforceable.

Aside from the atrocious use of prepositions, it’s just because two clean sentences is the most clear way to say it. Law should be neat and tidy, and this wouldn’t be the first time we used somewhat redundant parallel constructions. The condition for declaring candidacy is not the same as the condition for holding office in the case of the delegate, and that is why a distinction is being drawn between the two sentences.

Looking specifically at the language you proposed, there is now an ambiguity - is the requirement to hold office as delegate also inclusive of having been in the WA for a month? It doesn’t really make sense in the context of holding the office, since all you need to hold it is to be in the WA. A one month prior requirement is contemplated specifically for running for the office.