 |
|
Sheik
|
|
Did the ammendment to have a judicial system pass. If it did when will this be implemented?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ThePlagueRat
|
 |
Insert banana to play...
May 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
I think it's gonna pass... Ok, we need to discuss the details before we can implement it. That could mean some more polling, since this is meant to be constitutionalised.
Here's the content I proposed:
(we need some more, and some juridical edit to it)
------------------
Courtmembers:
Ok, we need more than 3 members of this court.
Someone have to be able to judge constitutional matters each day. I could apply for this job, but could never keep track every day alone. I say 5 members...
Parties:
A const.court member could, without problem, be a member of whatever party he/she wants. Organization freedom is a democratic right. Biased judgement would of course be subject to prosecution by the other four... and possible punishment by the society.
Officials:
An official in an other position would not be fit to this position.
They have enough to do, anyway...
Tasks:
The most common is to help the poll creators to follow guidelines, and judge whether they are followed constitutionally, or not.
A PM should be sent to a court member by someone who suspect invalidity in a poll. (to help them keep track)
And a court member should quote the actual const. clause, in their ruling, at the actual votation.
Another important task is to clarify const. clauses and seek to change weaknesses by toghether formulate a modification proposal in a poll. (but this have to be signed by the president in that votation and polled upon by 66% to go through)
On impeachment matters, they should all play an active role in the prosecution... And of course not being the defendant's solicitors. (well, other citizens could spontanously take that role)
-------------------
Do you think this look like a proper description for the court?
Last edited by ThePlagueRat on 08-07-2002 at 07:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Luk
|
|
Wroclaw, Lower Silesia, Poland
Mar 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
Member of Constitutional Court should not be a memeber of any party, it is a normal procedure in every single democratic country. I think it is very important, because it is a foundation of every normal judical system.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
 |
of España
May 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Here's the content I proposed:
(we need some more, and some juridical edit to it)
------------------
Courtmembers:
Ok, we need more than 3 members of this court.
Someone have to be able to judge constitutional matters each day. I could apply for this job, but could never keep track every day alone. I say 5 members...
|
5 is good. So 3 or 4 could always be available to decide any issue that may be deemed urgent. 7 or more is too much.
quote:
Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Parties:
A const.court member could, without problem, be a member of whatever party he/she wants. Organization freedom is a democratic right. Biased judgement would of course be subject to prosecution by the other four... and possible punishment by the society.
|
If you want to maintain the court's independence or at least its appearance, you could make any member leave their party. That is merely an act, obviously someone may still beleive in line with one of the parties and vote that way. But, to take them out of the party, restrict the threads they can post in, and given them unlimited terms would help bolster the independence they would have from any party or the general populace. A judge needs to do what he deems right and constritutional regardless of the feelings of the people, ministers, the president and the banana.
quote:
Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Officials:
An official in an other position would not be fit to this position.
They have enough to do, anyway...
|
Absolutely, if a minister were appointed they would have to resign their current post.
quote:
Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Tasks:
The most common is to help the poll creators to follow guidelines, and judge whether they are followed constitutionally, or not.
A PM should be sent to a court member by someone who suspect invalidity in a poll. (to help them keep track)
And a court member should quote the actual const. clause, in their ruling, at the actual votation.
Another important task is to clarify const. clauses and seek to change weaknesses by toghether formulate a modification proposal in a poll. (but this have to be signed by the president in that votation and polled upon by 66% to go through)
On impeachment matters, they should all play an active role in the prosecution... And of course not being the defendant's solicitors. (well, other citizens could spontanously take that role)
-------------------
|
1. I agree a poll creator can turn to the court for advise on constitutionality of a post, or even a minister may ask for guidance when they feel an action by them is questionable.
A PM to the court is appropriate and then court would consider.
2. I disagree however that the court should seek anything, i.e. a more clarified amendment,etc. Only when the issue arises into a dispute, should the matter be presented to the court for their decision. To allow the court to seek out and change the constitution is to potentially give them too much power. A dispute must be presented to them for them to make an interpretation of the constitution or as in 1. above.
3. On impeachment they should be the judge, and make the decision on whether the offending official is removed from office. Impeachment (or the indictment) should be handed down via a poll of the populace. The minsters, perhaps the VP or Pres should present the case for the prosecution, the defendant should have his right to counsel, or should rep himself. When arguments are presented the court may ask questions and then the court will deliberate. The question is should removal from office be unanimous or do 4 of 5 need to vote in favor or just a simple majority. That will need to be decided. The reason the court should decide this is that they should be the most independnt voice in the democracy, not swayed by public opinion or party politics, and therefore someone is not removed from office unless there truly is cause. Or at least that is what is hoped.
Power to the people, if that is what we want, demands a truly independent court. They need unlimited terms, but to counter balance that, they need to be restricted from posting on amendments, elections, campaigns, party threads, etc. and perhaps even should not be allowed into turn chats.
Sorry I went on so long, again, on this topic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LordImpact
|
 |
Earth
Jun 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
Could you please explain the need for so many restrictions on what the judges post and why they shouldnt be allowed to enter the turn chat? The judges should not be influenced by the people or ministers, i agree, but if they can't post opinions then they might as well not be able to read threads either...
[EDIT]What I mean to say is: I see no need for such heavy restrictions being placed on the judges. I agree thet they should be neutral in political affiliation, but why cant they ask questions of political candidates? Are they also not allowed to vote in elections? Their main job is to make sure the ministers are following the laws of the constitution. If they are being biased, then it would be pretty easy to catch and they can be removed.
I think if anyone would be a voice of reason in this game, it would be a judge. So why can't they put their two cents in on an amendment? I think these restrictions you suggest are infringing on the judges rights as a citizen. If a minister can do all these things why cant a judge?
--Impact
Last edited by LordImpact on 10-07-2002 at 00:57
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mtgillespie
|
|
Manchester, England
Oct 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jdjdjd
I guess that would work, so that the appearance of over ruling popular will is not left. Then, who would bring the matter to the court, is that where the ministers at 51% vote comes in? If all three have a say in impeachment of all officials, who could say that was not fair.
ministers at 51% sends it to court for review and confirmation, they require 2/3 or 3/4, whichever, and then people have the final say.
hmmm, I like that.
 |
Nooooooooo! 
You have a large majority government. They don't get 51% voting to get rid of their colleague and fellow party member 
then what do you do?
All the court should be is a filter on silly impeachment attempts. A citizen PM's a court member to impeach a minister. The court agrees (51%, ,2/3, 75%, the numbers can be decided later). If they agree there is a valid case, it goes to the populace, needing a 2/3 majority.
I personally wouldn't mind the court deciding these matters, if we can get the selection process working right, but as that doesn't seem to be the consensus, i'd be happy with the above compromise.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
LordImpact
|
|
Earth
Jun 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
*** SECTION 3 EDITED FOR CLARITY & OPERATION FLEXIBILITY CLAUSE ADDED TO END OF SECTION 11 - 11-07-02 1200 EST ***
RIGHTS OF JUDGES ADDED TO SECTION 1 & EDITED FOR GRAMMAR AND SPELLING - 11-07-02 0040 EST
YES, I KNOW IT'S LOOOOONG, BUT PLEASE READ AND GIVE FEEDBACK!!!
I am going to summarize my views on the court as simply as possible, because this is just getting plain chaotic. I've used the US Constitution as a reference point for terminology and basic set-up plus the discussions we've had so far. A note: I am using the word Impeachment under its true meaning, which is a TRIAL held against an elected official who had broken the law. Impeachment is NOT REMOVAL FROM OFFICE as I am using it.
-AMMENDMENT II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF APOLYTONIA-
1. The judicial power of the nation of Apolytonia is to be vested in the High Court of Apolytonia. The 5 judges of this court shall hold their office during good behavior (that means that the judges are acting responsibly as both citizens and judges). Judges are to be appointed by the President, and sworn in pending approval from Ministers (2/3 majority) and a simple majority vote from the people (50% + 1). Judges will hold their position as long as they are willing and able. Justices are citizens of the nation of Apolytonia and are thus entitled to the same rights and privileges every Apolytonian has. These rights are not to be infringed upon.
2. Judicial power is restricted to enforcement of the Constitution of the Nation of Apolytonia including any and all Amendments and the Laws of Apolytonia (this includes polling, the powers of elected officials, and ANYTHING else written in the constitution or in written law). All Cases, with the exception of polls, must be brought before the court.
3. The justices reserve the right to refuse to try a case. Pending trial, ALL justices will hear arguments from prosecution. The judges will then decide if the case holds water and tril is warranted.
4. In the event of a trail, 3 judges, no more, will preside. One judge is to be declared the Lead Justice. The trial, which will be held in a chat environment, will be moderated by the Lead Justice, who speaks for the court. The Lead Justice is the only agent of the court allowed to speak in the public room. All 3 justices will be present in a separate closed room where they can discuss the trial in peace. A chat log will be kept from start of trail to finish and posted publicly upon the trials completion. The chat log of the Judges room will remain private to the court and elected officials, but can be requested by said officials at any time for private viewing. Judiciary logs are also admissible in trial where use is warranted. When a trial is finished, the judges will decide on the means of passing judgment, weather it is by jury or otherwise. Justices are required to submit a summary of their decision
5. Polls are subject to review by the 3 members of the court and a decision on whether they adhere to the laws of the constitution will be decided amongst the judges.
6. In the event of an Impeachment, a trial will be held after the case is reviewed. (See section 4 for trial standards). After the trial is completed, a thread and poll will be set up by the Lead Justice on the case in which the citizenry of Apolytonia votes on weather the Accused is guilty or not guilty. If the Accused is found Guilty by 2/3 majority, he is to be removed from office immediately including any and all aides he has appointed. If he is found Not Guilty, all charges against him are to be dropped, and he cannot be tried for the same crime again.
7. Justices may be removed from their seat via Impeachment trial following the rules stated above.
8. Should it be discovered that a Minister or other elected official has been attempting to sway a justices decisions, they will be impeached as well as the justice should it be proven necessary. (If the justice complies to the ministers demands)
9. Should it be discovered that 3 or more of the seated justices are acting in a manner unbefitting a member of their office or beyond their power, the entire court is to be dissolved after a 2/3 majority vote by the citizens of Apolytonia and a new court is to be selected.
10. Rulings made by the justices without a jury or poll, are eligible for appeal. In the event of an appeal, the two justices, who did not sit on the case, will hear arguments and decide weather or not the findings of the court are in error. For a ruling to be in error, both justices must unanimously agree.
11. The organizational structure of this court will be decided on by the Justices of this court alone. Any changes to the basic operationg procedure of this court can be made at the disgression of the justices.
The High Court of Apolyton is an instrument of the government which enforces and interprets the Constitution and the law of the land. The court is not above the law.
I may have left some things out, so if I have please bring it up in discussion.
Anyone who has at least looked at Article III will notice this is longer than the three sections in the US Constitution. This is because we have no laws regarding trial by jury, guilty until proven innocent  etc. Plus this is an amendment. In the US Constitution there are sections referring to each branches power in reference to the other branches.
--Impact
Last edited by LordImpact on 11-07-2002 at 22:19
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-07-2002 07:01
I get it ! Here's what I should have wrote : Trip 
!
?)
|