10-07-2002 19:48									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Trip So do you suggest they serve permanent terms?

I know I have probably worn this out, but why not? This removes them from outside influences, or mking popular decisions simply to re-elected. The court needs to be the protector of the constitution and the democracy, that is it. We control their power by making them only rule on cases presented to them involving constitutional interpretation and also involved in impeachment. You also limit their ability to post on threads where they may exert political influence over a party or a people. Why do we make them leave a party, so they know this is serious and they no longer owe anything to that party or visa-versa. The people on the court need to be serious about serving. You also allow the people/ministers/court...someone...to have power to impeach a judge(s) similar to any other official.

	10-07-2002 19:52									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by disorganizer Why not the following: Let the citizenry elect the judges. A judge will stay there live-long until he resigns (immediate election for his replacement is held) or the court is disbanded.

quote: Originally posted by disorganizer Disbanding the court is done by a simple citizen poll. This should be set up by ANY citizen and should be up for 5 days. If it is accepted, the court COMPLETELY leaves office, but all judges can be reelected on the following full-reelection of the court.

I prefer impeachment as mentioned previously. If we go with this idea, however, to disband the court at least should require a 2/3's majority of the populace.

quote: Originally posted by disorganizer We should also deny any political activity (party or group membership as well as holding an office) for any of the judges, just to enforce their impartiallity. Meaning: No member of a party or a citizen-group and no official position holder can be nominated for judge, as well as no judge can be nominated for any official position.

or at least make them leave office after elected

	10-07-2002 20:00									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Sir Ralph I think what Trip means by that is that it takes both the government and the people to remove an official from office. In other words neither the government or the people can do it alone.

Trip that section that Sir Ralph posted above needs re-wording but I am not sure how it could be re-worded maybe something like:

A judge may be removed from his office by a 51% vote amongst the ministers and then a 2/3 vote amongst the people.

quote: In turn, the court may impeach a minister with a 75% vote within the court, and a 51% amongst the people (as opposed to only a 2/3 vote amongst the people

Again this is a problem. Can the court impeach a minister by itself?

Can the people impeach a minister by themselves?

If not then that statement would contradict what the constitution already says:

quote: All members of our great nation are recognized the right to bring foreword the issue of impeachment of any government official at any time. Resignations will be handled the same as any impeachments. A poll will be posted which will expire in no less than 5 days. There are to be three poll options, yea, nay, and abstain. Upon the expiration of the poll, if 2/3 of the people who voted deem impeachment necessary, then the official shall be immediately removed from office. The President shall establish an emergency member to take his/her place until a new election can be held, and a new person voted into office to finish the term.

I would suggest that this new admendment either reads:

With the passing of this admendment the court is the only body that has the right to bring forward a case of impeachment . The impeachment of the official in question will then be decided by the people. The Official is impeached with a 2/3 vote.

OR

The Court can impeach an official by itself with a 75% vote. This does not change the ability of the poeple to also impeach officials with a 2/3 vote.

OR

The court has no powers of impeachment and only the people can impeach an official with 2/3 vote.

-------------

Trip this may be what you mean by the above and maybe I just wasted all this time.

	10-07-2002 20:07									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by mtgillespie This is a waste of time. So someone is in a party, they resign, and that immediately changes their views? As long as we can remove judges who become radical, there is no problem with them belonging to a party. No-one is completely a-political, whether they belong to a party or not, and we should notpretend that this is the case. We should accept that people are political, and have judges from a spectrum of political views. How about this instead :- There shall never be more than 2 judges from any one political party. Party membership is considered to continue for one month after resignation. There must always be one independant judge at all times. That will probably need a lot of changing, but you get the basic idea.

Not that we think that they will become apolitical by leaving a party, its that they should not influence party politics or party politics should not influence them. It is a gesture of commitment to the protection of the constitution above all else. Their views will be their views, some will be strict interpretationists, others not, etc., but they must speak their mind and interpret unmarred by politics and outside influences. In this case the court is not so much as a protector of the majority, but a protector of the constitution.....

So its just a gesture of commitment to be apolitical and judge a case on its merits.

	10-07-2002 20:09									#35
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by disorganizer Why not the following: Let the citizenry elect the judges. A judge will stay there live-long until he resigns.

We should get new people into office. Why not give more citizens the ability to participate in government?

quote: Originally posted by disorganizer We should also deny any political activity (party or group membership as well as holding an office) for any of the judges, just to enforce their impartiallity. Meaning: No member of a party or a citizen-group and no official position holder can be nominated for judge, as well as no judge can be nominated for any official position.

Everyone has political opinions. We should let anyone in the court. I don't think that the people of Apolyton really have grudges or hatred towards any other party and therefore it doesn't matter if we have UFC judges ruling on DIA members or have DIA judges ruling on UFC members. I don't think party politics is a huge problem in Apolyton.

	10-07-2002 20:11									#36
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Sheik The government cant have the power to impeach judges because the court has the power to impeach other government officilas right? You can't have two groups with the power to impeach each other and still keep the system running properly.

Impeachment should probably be the same across all branches, a 2/3 majority of the people is probably what is needed at all to bring the case, and then the court ruling on the cases merits. If its a judge then the remaining judge's must review the case, and 2/3's of them should have to vote in favor (4 out of 5, or in the case of trying a judge, 3 out of the remaining 4). You can plug the ministers in their as well, perhaps they need a simple majority to present the case to the people and the people need 2/3 to say yes the action is warranted and then the court needs 2/3 for final approval.

	10-07-2002 20:13									#37
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Perhaps, impeachment of all officials needs to have a new separate amendment to clarify, once the court is set.

	10-07-2002 20:16									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

jdjdjd I think you are right we need a seperate amendment to deal with impeachment. I would go for something like:

Anyone can be impeached by the people with 2/3 vote and anyone can bring a case for the impeachment of another.

I don't know if that would cause problems or not but this way the people have full control at all times of who is in office.

	10-07-2002 20:28									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Impeachment is serious, your taking ou tof office someone the people voted into office. The people could be the final vote, but someone should review prior to going to the people to make sure this has merits and is not just because of politics, i.e. perhaps UFC and DIA unfying to oust an independent.

	10-07-2002 20:35									#40
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by jdjdjd Not that we think that they will become apolitical by leaving a party, its that they should not influence party politics or party politics should not influence them. It is a gesture of commitment to the protection of the constitution above all else. Their views will be their views, some will be strict interpretationists, others not, etc., but they must speak their mind and interpret unmarred by politics and outside influences. In this case the court is not so much as a protector of the majority, but a protector of the constitution..... So its just a gesture of commitment to be apolitical and judge a case on its merits.

OK, i don't think it's necessary, but i don't have a major problem with it. However, whether in or out of a party, influenced or not influenced, they cannot help but have political leanings, as it is in peoples nature, however fair minded they are. I still think that to acknowledge this, and also to be seen to be fair across the political spectrum, we need some way to ensure we appoint judges from both sides of our political divide (and even some who try to straddle it ).

Do we trust our president to do this (whoever it may be)? At the moment, we seem to be saying that we trust that the right candidates will be put forward. I hope they will, but what if they are not? What if, at the time of elections, one party has a huge majority. the president puts forward a list of like minded people, and the people vote for them. One party could control the ministries and the courts. Should we not at least always have a balanced judiciary?

I realise this is all a bit worst case scenario, i just think we are putting checks and balances into every other bit of legislation, are we doing enough here?

	10-07-2002 20:40									#41
	Re: Re: Re: Amendment II: Apolytonian Court - Idea Compilation Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Trip What if 3 out of the 5 members of a court decide that "hey, we don't like this one law, let's get rid of it." With 3/5 of the judge already agreeing, the law doesn't have a chance.

Why, and how ? I think the current law of a 66% vote to change a law is consistent and will work just fine to prevent such radical power abuses. (maybe formulated a bit different in the const.)

The court should also go through the whole spaghetti looking for ambiguities and inconsistency. ( There are some few I think, good work otherwise! )

After that, they must also pass 66% votation if the meaning is to be altered in some way by the beuraucratic machinery... In that case, it will work in the essence of democracy anyway!

	10-07-2002 20:51									#42
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by mtgillespie Do we trust our president to do this (whoever it may be)? At the moment, we seem to be saying that we trust that the right candidates will be put forward.

Yeah, well I think we can trust the current president and his administration. But that's not the problem...

This is to become constitutionalised, and future administrations we know nothing about!

That's the problem. Giving this appointing-power to certain positions, and thereby to unknown individuals, is kinda risky.
We would have all the good old conspiracy theories posted in a while after some elections... It's a beuraucratic weakness!
(and should be dealt with here)

NB: I favour democratic elections, but I was opposed by a majority of voters.

	10-07-2002 20:58									#43
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by ThePlagueRat Yeah, well I think we can trust the current president and his administration. But that's not the problem... This is to become constitutionalised, and future administrations we know nothing about! That's the problem. Giving this appointing-power to certain positions, and thereby to unknown individuals, is kinda risky. We would have all the good old conspiracy theories posted in a while after some elections... It's a beuraucratic weakness! (and should be dealt with here) NB: I favour democratic elections, but I was opposed by a majority of voters.

Thanks for summing it up much more neatly than i could

	10-07-2002 21:03									#44
	Tired of ads?

I don't think it is risky to have judges in parties. The Judges will be responsible with power and will try to look at situations without letting their parties feelings get in the way. I like to be optimistic and think that no one will abuse their power. Maybe we could have a way for the judges decision to be over-turned with a 90% vote of the people. Though I think this goes to far. Eventually we are going to have a system where it could take a year to decide if a poll is valid.

Let the judges be appointed and let them do their job. Like mtgillespie says everyone has political opinions. Even independants.

	10-07-2002 21:19									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by ThePlagueRat Yeah, well I think we can trust the current president and his administration. But that's not the problem... This is to become constitutionalised, and future administrations we know nothing about! That's the problem. Giving this appointing-power to certain positions, and thereby to unknown individuals, is kinda risky. We would have all the good old conspiracy theories posted in a while after some elections... It's a beuraucratic weakness! (and should be dealt with here) NB: I favour democratic elections, but I was opposed by a majority of voters.

Always a risk, democratic elections also have a risk, i.e. that independent candidates don't get the support in posts that party candidates will, and thus we limit candidates to the two parties.

In US any appointment by the president would have to be approved by the Congress, which helps make them choose more balanced nominees....we do not have such a body, however. So long as the major parties stay in balance, then it forces the president to pick someone where he can get a consensus, and this allows for independents to have a fair chance.

I assume the majority is thinking, well we elected this president and these ministers, so we feel they can hanlde the appointment of the judge, but so long as I have impeachment power, then I can kick out anyone who is unfit.

The other thing goes to the many things brought up already about keeping the court indenpendent, i.e. no term limit, impeachment, limiting cases they can hear, leaving party, no posting in election, campaign, or amendment threads, etc.

	11-07-2002 00:55									#46
	Inflate your Upload Space

Elected judges = a weakened court.

If judges are elected like ministers, then it will be a popularity contest worse than minister elections. They can have no platform, and therefore, are only voted by how popular they are. For example, if I were to run against Togas for one of the judicial positions after my Presidency, who do you think would win? Togas just emailed me and told me that he's an attorney in real life, and thoroughly understands the law as well as its repercussions. I know that I would pick him over me any day to be a judge.

I'm not saying that the public is stupid, just that it can be vulnerable to these kinds of situations. And if you do not trust your President to be the most apolitical member of the government, then I suggest running yourself, if you feel that is such a great problem. I hope you guys won't be voting real dictators into power.

The impeachment issue:

I think that it can be entirely reworked with this amendment. For example, here's my proposal:

quote: IN ALL CASES, ministers can only be impeached by a 51% vote in the Court, and a 2/3 votes amongst the people. A judge can be removed from office by a 51% vote in the government, and a 2/3 vote amongst the people.

There. Is that fair enough? That will be how all impeachents/removals from office/whatever you want to call them will be conducted.

	11-07-2002 01:20									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Not that I like to agree to often with those in power....

But, Trip has hit the nail on the head there.

In another thread on these issues, Lord Impact proposed appt by the Pres, concurrment by the minsters at 51 % and approval by the populace at 67%. A bit long on time, but may be a compromise, as such.

I might suggest leaving out the ministers, then the general populace acts as the Congress would in US and confirm the appt made by the Pres.

	11-07-2002 03:58									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Trip Elected judges = a weakened court. If judges are elected like ministers, then it will be a popularity contest worse than minister elections. They can have no platform, and therefore, are only voted by how popular they are. For example, if I were to run against Togas for one of the judicial positions after my Presidency, who do you think would win? Togas just emailed me and told me that he's an attorney in real life, and thoroughly understands the law as well as its repercussions. I know that I would pick him over me any day to be a judge.

How would a vote among the ministers make this any better?

Besides, if judge elections are handled by a popular vote (pun intended), I'm sure qualifications such as being a lawyer, judge, etc. in RL will be mentioned. Candidates who can make such statements would be stupid not to.

And finally, I think there's also something to bo said for voter responsibility. If all of the judge appointments are both made and confirmed by the government, citizens may not give the judges as much credence as they would if they were the ones confirming them; after all, they had no say except their votes for ministers and president, and I know I want to consider competence of the candidates without their potential confirmation votes getting in the way. Also, if confirmations were handled by the people, we'd have to at least partially blame ourselves for bad judges getting elected.

quote: The impeachment issue: I think that it can be entirely reworked with this amendment. For example, here's my proposal:

Looks good to me.

	11-07-2002 04:49									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Confirmation by the Public?

I know we all want to have a say in what's going on, but we have to consider what grounds we, the public, would use to confirm an appointed judge: political parties, popularity, number of posts?

Are we going to vote/not vote for people based on their qualifications? If so, what qualifications are important to us as individuals, and do we want our judges to campaign and try to sway the masses to pick them?

Let's be honest with ourselves about this: Do we the public NEED to confirm the judges because we don't trust our elected officials to pick good ones, or do we WANT to confirm the judges because we like to feel involved in the process?

Of course, I'm reminded of the American process for picking judges whereby the Senate asks them about their alleged sexual harassment of female clerks and asks if they watch pornography... democracy at it's finest.

--Togas

	11-07-2002 05:29									#50
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Trip If judges are elected like ministers, then it will be a popularity contest worse than minister elections. They can have no platform, and therefore, are only voted by how popular they are.

Judges must be appointed.

	11-07-2002 07:22									#51
	Support Apolyton

Confirmation does not mean election.

Confirmation is a yes/no to a single candidate. Not a choice among many.

It should be 51% to confirm. 51% to reconfirm.

The reason for the people to be involved is to be a check on potential ministerial abuse, and to get the politicians right out of the reconfirmation process.

Checks and balances.

	11-07-2002 07:59									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Togas Confirmation by the Public? I know we all want to have a say in what's going on, but we have to consider what grounds we, the public, would use to confirm an appointed judge: political parties, popularity, number of posts? Are we going to vote/not vote for people based on their qualifications? If so, what qualifications are important to us as individuals, and do we want our judges to campaign and try to sway the masses to pick them?

All very good arguments, though, as NYE pointed out, there wouldn't be much of a campaign; just a confirmation or rejection. But what makes the ministers any different? They probably play Civ better than most of us in order to be elected, but I don't see how they could accept or reject judges any wiser than the rest of us.

	11-07-2002 11:24									#53
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Ministers can be (and are) elected based upon their views.

A judge trying to do the same thing would be on a one-way ticket home. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Ministers are also elected because their jobs demand some kind of maturity and ability to make rational decisions. If we cannot trust them to make decisions for us in any case, then why have ministers with power at all?

	11-07-2002 11:36									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The ministers play that game, that is what all this is about. Isn't it?

Ministers should be more political animals. Judges should be very unpolitical animals. However, the people should have a say about judges who overstay their usefulness.

Nobody has said that people can not campaign against a judge being reconfirmed. If you want to take a stand on a reconfirmation, go ahead.

	11-07-2002 11:43									#55
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither The ministers play that game, that is what all this is about. Isn't it?

Actually, the President plays the game. The ministers 'advise', which can be done just as well as a poll or Joe 'Poly out there.

quote: Ministers should be more political animals. Judges should be very unpolitical animals. However, the people should have a say about judges who overstay their usefulness.

I think most people will agree that politics = badness in most cases: ministers or judges.

quote: Nobody has said that people can not campaign against a judge being reconfirmed. If you want to take a stand on a reconfirmation, go ahead.

I don't plan on being a judge, nor do I plan on being around for their reconfirmation, so I want to hear other people's ideas on this.

	11-07-2002 12:06									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

well, if only the ministers advise, why dont we call it a "civ3 game of monarchy"? this would fit better.

the way we should come to is: the CITIZENS advise. actually, the advisors play the game, as the president should not be able to take any action in the game without the advice of the citizenry, represented by the ministers.

and this is what we need the judges for.
so appointing to judges by the president would be a bad idea, as they have an interest-conflict when sueing the president. also, this will not prevent a campaign, just that it will not be a campaing for the populace but for the president (who will he/she appoint? definitely ppl he/she likes or who he knows are loyal to him/her).

	11-07-2002 12:14									#57
	Support Apolyton

I say this not only in my own defense, but for any potential Presidents in the future.

Have you no more confidence in this office than that? The President's position is the most prestigious, powerful, and the one that carries the most responsibility than any other. I hold the belief that whoever holds this position will be responsible enough to appoint judges that are fair and neutral. This should be one of the reasons you want to pick a fair and neutral President, or at least one that understands what the judges positions are, and not appoint people based upon their party.

If you lack such confidence in the President, then there can be some way to remove the judges who are corrupt, say, by a 51% vote. But wait! You say that that would be an easy number for a party to easily remove all judges. Well then, what are you going to do... who can you trust...

	11-07-2002 12:27									#58
	Inflate your Upload Space

I'm sorry Trip, but you can not measure your successors by your own stick. Bad people get to the top all the time through some form of elections. That is history. That is why abuses are guarded against in a well constituted nation.

As for the ministers and President and who is 'playing'... who is it you ask for orders in a turn chat? I thought so. The president and the ministers are playing the game collectively. This court is not involved in that in the slightest. It would be good to differentiate.

	11-07-2002 15:35									#59
	Increase Your PM Length

@trip: this was not meant for you, great leader ;-)

but this was exactly the way how some party managed to corrupt the weimar republic constitution in rl. the fathers of this document just trusted the politicians too much and left holes in there, which those used to gain power and destroy democracy. citizens at that time were blended by propaganda. this scenario could happen in our vl too.

	11-07-2002 15:47									#60
	Put an end to popups!

I'm sorry to be unconstructive here, but I can't imagine modfying this document so that it becomes good. Don' get me wrong : it's well written and interesting.
But the very spirit of this document is to take power from the people (no election / confirmation, impeachment of judges by the ministers, the court has decsion powers in matters of impeachment of an executive etc.)

This game is intended to be fun for everyone, not for a small group of executives who get to decide everything. We're slowly becoming a modern Democracy, like one of those where 50% people don't care, and other 25% wote only because "it's a duty".

Trip seems to be fine with giving less and less interest to the people in this game. I don't.