 |
| |
|
|
Trip
|
 |
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
Since the thread got sooooo very long, I'm posting (yet) another thread.
Here is my proposed amendment as it stands:
quote:
This amendment hereby creates an official Apolytonian Court. The amendment will outline its creation, meathod of judicial appointment and powers.
The Court is entitled to rule upon and only upon cases brought in front of it. It can by no means pursue cases. The decisions it comes in agreement to are official and the same case can only be brought forth again with 75% of the justices agreeing to hear the appeal. Cases that involve Constitutional affairs as well as non-Constitutional affairs may be ruled upon by the court.
The Court is to have 5 members. These members are to be appointed by the President, and approved by 2/3 of the ministers. The court is to decide among itself a 'senior justice', who will produce a report upon each case, and preside over each trial that take place. A quorum of at least 3 justices must rule in every case for it to be official. In the case of a tie, the senior justice is to decide the result of the case. A report is to be written for both the majority and the dissenting sides of each case, explaining the reasoning that the justices came to their decision.
Justices may serve as many terms as they are chosen to. A justice may not be a member of any other position but his own in the court. Each term will be 2 months in length. A judge may be removed from his office by a 51% vote amongst the ministers and a 2/3 vote amongst the people. 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). |
Here is an excellent summary courtesy of Captain, so you guys don't have to read 4 pages of stuff  :
GENERAL SUMMARY of the JUDICIAL THREADS
(Note: All polls refer to % of active citizens).
Major Issues with General Consensus:
1. Judges should not hold any other office while being a judge.
2. Three judges should sit on each case. The quorum is 3. Which judges sit on which case will be determined based on availability, randomness, or a cycle.
3. There should be more judges, at least 5, so that at least 3 of them will always be available for duty.
4. The main duties of Judges are to determine validity of polls, repolls, and other contentious laws - according to the existing Constitution and laws. Politics are not to be considered.
5a. Judges have the additional role of "filtering" accusations/charges against people (in "Hearings") and determining which ones warrant proceeding (with "Trial") and which should be dismissed.
5b. This includes deciding whether there are grounds for Impeachment trials to proceed. Judges do not have the power to indict on their own.
6. Judges can be removed by the same impeachment process as ministers. If more judges are on trial than are available for sitting in judgement, all judges will then face a Confirmation poll (51% or 2/3). Any unconfirmed Judge will have to be replaced. Hearings/Trials will then proceed.
7. Impeachment cases have "Hearings" which may proceed to "Trial". Polling cases do not have "Hearings" or "Trial". Judges simply make a decision and the poll is either valid or not.
8. Judges have no power to sentence, no power to create new laws (other than by the same means that regular citizens do), and no power to enforce their recommendations. They simply decide the validity of polls & law, and whether the law has been broken.
9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. 2/3 is required. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain.
10. Judges must publish a report giving the legal reasons for their decision to validate the ruling. Only the majority opinion must be given for validation. Dissenting opinion should be given but is not required for validation. In the event of a Unanimous ruling, the report must still be published for validation. This is in case of appeal and to keep Justice transparent. Reports should include any recommendations.
11. Judges cannot seek out cases on their own. (But a concerned judge can bring a case before the Judiciary as long as they do not sit on it or any other current case. This prevents Judges from "trading favours". The simpler loophole is for a Judge to simply PM a citizen who will take up their cause for them.)
Major Issues without Consensus
1. Should Judges be appointed, or elected, or something else?
a. Judges should not be elected as this leads to a popularity contest, rather than who will best serve the nation. Judges should be appointed.
b. Judges should not be appointed since this would lead to too much political interference and leading to Judges who are beholden to certain ministers/officials. Judges should be elected.
c. A possibility is appointment by the President (or ministers) with a required 51% confirmation of nominees by the citizens (not an election). This is a compromise.
2. Should Judges have term limits? If so, how long? Should the terms be staggered to provide rotation?
a. Unlimited terms could lead to corruption. People should be able to remove bad judges without resorting to impeachment trial (especially if multiple judges are protecting each other by dismissing charges).
b. Limited terms means Judges will have to play to the crowds or appease the ministers when it comes time for re-election/re-appointment. Unlimited terms prevent politicizing justice or vendettas. Besides, removal already exists, from retirement and impeachment.
3. Should Judges have the power of injuction to halt the game ?
a. Yes, to prevent unconstitutional acts. Example given was that of a President engaging in an unlawful war (that which the public has voted against).
b. No, the Justice system can punish criminal acts after they are committed, but not prevent them in advance since no crime has taken place.
(Also, the chance of the President unlawfully engaging in some act is zero, since at present the Constitution does not require officials to obey polls.)
4. Should Judges have the power of injunction to halt a contested poll until a decision is made? but not the game?
5. Judicial decisions are open to appeal, but what is the mechanism for appeal?
a. A review by the other judges (not involved in the case) who then decide whether there are any legal grounds for granting a new trial.
b. A poll to the public with a 51% or 2/3 vote success forces a new trial.
6. Where the law is unclear or non-existant, should Judges be required to dismiss the case?
a. Yes. No relevant law exists, therefore, the Judges have no right to continue a trial. Any new law created should not be retroactive because citizens should not be bound in fear of unknown new laws condemning them for present actions.
b. No. Judges may place the case on Hold while requesting the legislature (that is, all the citizens) to clarify the law or create a new law, by discussion & poll. The case can then proceed.
7. Should governments be allowed a Notwithstanding Clause which lets them temporarily ignore Judicial rulings or delay their implementation?
8. Should there be any clauses similar to Presidental Pardon?
9. Should Judges be allowed to be members of political parties?
How's that? Have I left anything significant out?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sheik
|
|
Trip this looks good. I just skimmed through it now and will take another look at it in the morning. This is a well-written amendment. Thanks for working so hard on it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epistax
|
 |
of Bananas
May 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
1) Judges should be appointed by the president, and a simple majority of the congress (however we define such) agrees
2) No term limits, No term length. (woah man) Judges are not elected, they are appointed. They are chosen and accepted by those in charge. If it is felt they can no longer performed their duties, they are removed. By EITHER congress, or other justices. Executive branch has no say. They may also resign.
3) Justices should be able to halt the game if three justices agree (assuming 5 max), MEANING if only three justices are present, they must all agree. If there are any more, any 3 agreeing can halt the game.
4) I don't get it
5) A 2/3rds majority of congress may override the justice, although this should never have to happen.
6) A justice's duty is to interpret the law already written. If no law exists, they cannot judge. They do not have to reach a decision if they do not see fit.
7) I don't know.
8) Possibly in the case of a non unanimous ruling against someone, not sure.
9) Yes, but I would ask judges not to campaign for anyone, or push their views.
These are all opinions of EPISTAX! This is how I would see the system. Someone say where I am wrong so I might slap you. peace.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aggie
|
 |
Of GOW's half of BOB
Jun 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
A few points and my suggestions. First in the concensus area. It now reads this way.
"9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. 2/3 is required. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain."
The 2/3 should be removed so it should read, imho:
9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain.
This way the court could rule 3-2 in a case if all 5 vote. The otherway it was said, there could be a no decison on a 3-2 vote since this isn't 2/3
Now for the nonconcensus issues:
1) As it is in the amendment right know is good, i say leave as is, but if you feel compelled to change option c is best.
3) Should Judges have the power of injuction to halt the game ?
Yes, because even though we can not foresee an unlawful act taking place, it still could and thus judges should have the power to stop it, IF ASKED.
5. Judicial decisions are open to appeal, but what is the mechanism for appeal?
May I suggest an appeal to the ministers, with a unanimous vote of the minsters required to overturn. The reason for this is, whats the purpose of a court if all their decisions can be overturned easily. Decisions should only be overturned if blatantly erronious. In that case all minsiters might vote to overturn it.
6) Where the law is unclear or non-existant, should Judges be required to dismiss the case?
No, if the law is unclear the job of judges is to interprit. If no law exist they should dismiss.
7) Should governments be allowed a Notwithstanding Clause which lets them temporarily ignore Judicial rulings or delay their implementation?
NO
9) Should Judges be allowed to be members of political parties?
Yes, because they are people and participants in the game too, the goal is for them to leave their cards at the door when they come to make a decision.
One last thing in the impeachment section, could we change the 51% peoples vote to a 60%. As I've said before this needs to be higher % than 51.
Those are my opinions and I hope everybody considers them.
Respectfully submitted
Aggie
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Moral Hazard
|
 |
of jack
Jul 1999
time: 01:20
|
|
Everything omitted I am in complete agreement with and have no questions about.
4. The main duties of Judges are to determine validity of polls, repolls, and other contentious laws - according to the existing Constitution and laws. Politics are not to be considered.
I assume this mean their rulings will no way be based on politics and only previous laws and the constitution in which case I agree wholeheartedly.
5b. This includes deciding whether there are grounds for Impeachment trials to proceed. Judges do not have the power to indict on their own.
I believe that politicians can still be impeached for simply being unpopular. So I am unclear what the courts duties are here, is it dismiss scurious attempt which will definetly not succeed? Or have we decided that an official can only be removed for valid reasons? I have not seen any poll to indicate this, if their was then please post a link and I'll remove my criticism. Hence I disagree with 5 being generally agreed on.
7. Impeachment cases have "Hearings" which may proceed to "Trial". Polling cases do not have "Hearings" or "Trial". Judges simply make a decision and the poll is either valid or not.
Disagree for the same general reason as 5.
1. Should Judges be appointed, or elected, or something else?
This issue requires a a clear poll as I don't think we will ever reach a consensus through argueing on the thread. That last poll indicated that they should be appointed but comfirmation remains in doubt. I think if options a, b, and c were presented than we c would win in a landslide.
2. Should Judges have term limits? If so, how long? Should the terms be staggered to provide rotation?
needs a poll I think
3 and 4. Should Judges have the power of injunction to halt a contested poll until a decision is made? but not the game?
Concerning three i agree with Cap's assessment that disobeying polls is not considered illegal at this point. Concernig 4, yes they should be allowed to put an injuction on poll decisions.
5. Judicial decisions are open to appeal, but what is the mechanism for appeal?
b. A poll to the public with a 51% or 2/3 vote success forces a new trial.
B is the proper decision with 2/3 required I think.
7. Should governments be allowed a Notwithstanding Clause which lets them temporarily ignore Judicial rulings or delay their implementation?
I think you can leave this up to a court decision in a case by case decision.
8. Should there be any clauses similar to Presidental Pardon?
Certainly not.
9. Should Judges be allowed to be members of political parties?
Yes but they must completely support thier decision through law or the constitution.
Aggie.
The 2/3 should be removed so it should read, imho:
9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain.
This way the court could rule 3-2 in a case if all 5 vote. The otherway it was said, there could be a no decison on a 3-2 vote since this isn't 2/3
I agree.
3) Should Judges have the power of injuction to halt the game ?
Yes, because even though we can not foresee an unlawful act taking place, it still could and thus judges should have the power to stop it, IF ASKED.
What are the cases in which officials can do unlawful game acts besides of course, retaining control after being voted out of office?
5. Judicial decisions are open to appeal, but what is the mechanism for appeal?
2/3 is best, since that would change the constitution, rendering the ruling moot.
One last thing in the impeachment section, could we change the 51% peoples vote to a 60%. As I've said before this needs to be higher % than 51.
I agree.
Last edited by Moral Hazard on 15-07-2002 at 10:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:20
|
|
Well, since there's not all that much debate here (yet  ), I will at least state my feelings on the contested ideas.
1. Method of selecting judges.
I still believe appointment by the peoples' Democratically chosen, trusted officials is the way to go.  Election is too political and brings about the (vague) possibility of contested elections from the very start. I would however not oppose strongly the idea of appointment, followed by confirmation, if it appeared the will of the people was strongly in odds with my main view.
2. Term limits
I have less strong feelings about this, but I slant towards having them - two months at a time is fine by me. This at least gives others the chance to participate -the people can always vote no confidence in the new candidates and to restore the originals if we so wish. That is what the Demo game is all about, isn't it? First - the peoples' will be done, and seeond - give everyone every chance in the world to participate wherevere and however they want. Obviously some are less suited to Ministerial positions or Judiciary, but we at least must grant them the right to run for election.
3. Power to halt the game
This may be heading towards a little too much power, but such an issue will likely never arise. My feeling is in accord with the other posters' here - grant them the power.
4. Power to halt/restart a poll
You bet. This is a large part of what the Judiciary is, IMO. 
5. Mechanism for Appeal
I think perhaps it's best for the people to have a say here - but how will we avoid silly cases being brought forth to waste peoples' time? Perhaps if we make it so that there is a minimum number of voters in such a poll for it to be considered valid? If someone else can think of another way around this let us know. 
6. If the law is unclear/absent
It is the Judiciary's job to clarify laws! If this requires a suspension on the case until clarification is made, so be it. If the law doesn't exist, then there can be no case on principle, but then it is up to someone to ensure next time there IS a law.
7. Can the Government temporarily ignore rulings and/or sentences?
No. Why should they?
8. Presidential Pardon Clauses
N O.
9. Judges can be members of a political party
Sure. But if their politicking is seen to be excessive or to interfere with their job, they should be able to b e removed via the same process as they are chosen (by Ministerial acceptance of the removal and/or confirmation by the people.
60% required for impeachment (Aggie's idea) - this sounds fine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epistax
|
|
of Bananas
May 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
When someone is elected by the populACE, it is because they are populAR. This might be fine with little positions such as president and ministers  But for judges, whose job is basically to keep things on track, their duty is to officiate as independently as possible. In theory, the best judge is the person that knows nothing, and knows no one.
Now when someone is appointed by the president, and accepted by the ministers, there really is little in a popularity contest. It's ultimately up to one individual to select someone. If they are bias, they are rejected by congress (or whatever we are calling it). If they become bias, they are removed. If they are unbias, no matter how unpopular, should they be removed? IMHO, no, not as long as they are doing what is right, although the congress or other justices can have the person removed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
 |
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
About #4 of the contested issues...
What I meant was, that in the event of a poll being done, whereby:
i) the poll has been charged with being invalid such as improper procedure or setup,
ii) and the poll is close to finishing (or has finished) and actions based on the poll will soon take place,
iii) and Judges deem such actions to be serious enough that if such actions based on a faulty poll are carried out, will cause great confusion and harm,
Judges can order an injunction to prevent any actions from being taken based on the poll, until a final judgment about its validity is rendered.
This differs from Issue #3, because while an Injuction on certain actions can be placed, the game does not actually stop.
For instance, in Issue #3, if the Judges find a Trade to be possibly illegal, they would be able to halt the game - no playing of turns until the Trade's legality is resolved. Everything in-game stops.
In Issue #4, the Judges would be able to prevent such a Trade from being carried out until the Trade's legality is decided, but without stopping the game. All other game actions, such as exploring, building, other trades, war, etc... would proceed, but that actions based around that specific Trade are barred.
Hope that makes more sense.
And in case it's not obvious from my description, I prefer Injuctions Power of #4 over #3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
|
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie
A few points and my suggestions. First in the concensus area. It now reads this way.
"9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. 2/3 is required. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain."
The 2/3 should be removed so it should read, imho:
9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain.
This way the court could rule 3-2 in a case if all 5 vote. The otherway it was said, there could be a no decison on a 3-2 vote since this isn't 2/3
|
Well, this isn't in the amendment yet, but you're right. I agree, this should be changed to your wording, or at least something better than what I wrote. Majority opinion it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
|
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
Clarification on NotWithStanding Clause:
I realize I haven't given any reasons for having one, but the primary reason is to allow governments to "get on with the game".
Trials can take long periods of time and Injunctions (if granted to Judges as a power) can hold up a game. A government would invoke a NotWithStanding Clause to (temporarily) ignore Court orders. Hopefully they would have a good reason, but it is not necessary. Governments who abuse this power would be severely punished at election time.
Traditionally, NWS clauses have time limits. Each invocation of the clause must be reviewed within a certain time period to be renewed.
Note that the NWS is invoked by the administration (President upon advisement of ministers) but must be "ratified" by legislature (that is, all of us active citizens). This is similar to a emergency poll to ignore a court order.
The NWS clause is used for poll/policy issues, not when people are on trial.
Also, it is a "democratic" safeguard in the sense that sometimes, Courts will reach decisions (perhaps deciding that a certain law is unconstitutional and thereby striking it down) but the general will of the populace supports such a law. Governments can invoke the NWS Clause to maintain the law.
For example, a previously existing poll (such as the naming convention) which has become enshrined as law (or tradition), does not hold up to Constitutional rules. Judges declare it invalid and order a repoll. However, the government feels this poll result is necessary for the good functioning of the game or that repolling would be disruptive at this time, and the populace supports the govt. They can temporarily ignore the court's ruling.
Generally, I don't see much use for it, but IRL, governments seldom use it either. The last time I saw it used was when Alberta used the NWS clause to uphold their law defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman (that law was deemed unconstitutional and "discriminatory" but the vast majority of Albertans wanted that law so they ignored the court ruling and used the NWS clause). While we don't have any such similar issues on these forums, who knows? maybe it'll be useful, maybe not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sheik
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Captain
Lastly, a forgotten issue!
Should there be a time limit for trials to be completed and verdicts rendered? Should there be a time limit for non-trial verdicts to be rendered (polling validity, etc...)?
|
Yes. It should be a long time though maybe up to a week after the trail has ended.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-07-2002 08:10
I still say approval should be by the public at large.
|