data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44420/44420353ec00848a00d92e7701cebbd96bfe47b7" alt="Top of page" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/83bad/83bad59a5f3bdcce27b06a18c0fc1505e5f04cad" alt="Previous message" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f0951/f095149666cca060f22426abdc8136e0d061cec5" alt="Next message" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/668db/668dba6d8781d4a73de2711de4cdaf604bfd9e5a" alt="Bottom of page" Brady | Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 02:05 pm data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/59974/59974fc7fa7745e0f218bbdd2c652939b1330c13" alt="Click here to edit this post" As I understand it, any such limitations would either be added to the Citizen Compact, or be part of known existing law. Regardless of which, a prospective citizen would be aware of each of these prior to agreeing to the terms of citizenship. Thus, any existing unanimity would not be compromised since new entrants are apprised of the new conditions prior to agreeing to citizenship. At least, this is my understanding of things. Hope that helps! |