Welcome to the Term 1 Courtroom of the Sixth Installation of the Civilization Three Democracy Game!

The purpose of the court is to uphold, defend, and intereperet the constitution of Fanattania
Please feel free to come in public or private to any justice if you are in need of legal advice.

Justices:
Chief Justice: Black_Hole (http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=40578)
Public Defender: Ravensfire (http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?userid=11651)
Judge Advocate: Ashburnham (http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?userid=51401)

Census/Amending Laws:
Term 1 Quorum: 43
Number of votes needed to amend Constitution: 26(60% of Census)
Number of votes needed to amend Code of Laws: (Unkown %)

Links:
Constitution and Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113684)
Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112551)

Important Discussions:
Judicial Procedures (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112946)
Defintions of Offices (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112627)

Availible Citizens for Pro Term Justices:
mhcarver
blackheart

I would like to welcome back ravensfire and Ashburnham to their Term 6 Positions
This Court is Currently In Session :hammer:

1. The Judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief Justice, the
Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.

2. All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and
responsibilities.
A. Discuss the Court Procedures, as composed by the Chief Justice,
in a most constructive way, and ratify when reaching consensus.
B. Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and
any lower laws.
C. Do not have Deputies, but may appoint Pro-Tem officials
(Pro-Tem CJ, Pro-Tem PD, and Pro-Tem JA) if they are unable
to fulfil their duties.
Pro-Tem officials have all the rights and responsibilities of the
officials they are filling in for, but are a temporary position, and
must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official.
The pro-tem status may be given for individual assignments or for the
entirety of the official (this must be declared).
D. Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews to determine the legality
of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form
of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
E. Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews (JRs) to interpret and
clarify existing Constitutional Articles and any other form of lower
law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
F. Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews to examine whether
or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
G. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

3. The Chief Justice ~
A. Performs as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge
Advocate in the absence of either official. This duty shall only apply
if said officials have not appointed a Pro-Tem official.
B. Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial
thread at the beginning of the Term.
C. Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
D. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on
topic and procedurally accurate.
E. If the situation arises where the actions of a Leader (Advisor) of a
Department fall within the parameters of being absent from a position,
as set forth by CoL Section G.3, the Chief Justice may declare said
Office vacant.

4. The Public Defender ~
A. Is tasked with ensuring all Citizens’ Complaint investigations are
performed correctly, with deference to the presumed innocence
of the accused.
B. Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought
against him and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused
can mount an effective defence.
C. Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

5. The Judge Advocate ~
A. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations
and trial.
B. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
C. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any
anonymous accusers.

6. All Judicial Review and Investigations will be held publicly. Public
communication between the Justices will be posted in the Judicial thread
or the Investigation threads.

7. Judicial Review
A. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the
Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and
laws.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not
conflict with existing rules.
4. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the
House with details of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then
be edited and resubmitted for Review.
5. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as
a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.
C. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
1. Any member of the house may request a Judicial Review for
interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. The existing Law
must be clearly stated in the request.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
3. The Chief Justice has the right to dismiss a Judicial Review,
if the Chief Justice deemes a Judicial Review to have "No Merit".
i. Specific reasoning must be given by the Chief Justice for a
judgement of "No Merit".
ii. If the Judge Advocate and the Public Defender believe that the
Judicial Review has merit, while the Chief Justice dismissed a
Judicial Review, the Majority Opinion will be followed.
4. Anyone, including justices, may request the Judicial Review to receive
a thread in the Citizen's Forum. This thread will be posted by the
Chief Justice.
5. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification,
forming a Majority Opinion.
6. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial
Log for reference.
D. Dismissal of Investigations deemed as having "No Merit".
1. 3 of 3 Justices must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit".
2. Specific reasoning must be given by each Justice for a judgement
of "No Merit".

8. Citizen's Complaint
A. If any citizen believes that someone has violated an Article of the
Constitution or any other lower form of law, they can report this
suspected violation for investigation and trial.
1. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
2. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via
Private Message.
B. Allegations of misconduct must include:
1. Name of the defendant.
2. The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
3. When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.
C. The Citizen's Complaint will be included in the Court’s Docket.
D. The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused
of the charge(s).
E. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done (see 7.D above)
to determine if the charges have "No Merit".
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate
opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
1. The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public
Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s)
(Defence). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish
(within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been
posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these
reserved spots and anyone can post.
G. Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s),
whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and
if the case should go to Trial.
H. If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves
to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the
investigation thread early if this occurs.
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed,
the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.
1. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent and Abstain
and will remain open for 48 hours.
2. In the event the Trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the
Judiciary will determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty by
posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Trial poll.
J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll
is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1. The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the
following Options:
i. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
ii. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
iii. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
iv. Warning
v. No Punishment
vi. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the
current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing
poll narrative.
3. Once the poll has been closed, the Chief Justice shall determine the
sentence for the accused.
i. Each vote shall be determined as a vote for the option selected,
and all less-severe options.
ii. The sentence selected shall be the most severe sentence that a
majority of the citizens supported.

Example:Option A- 4 Votes
Option B - 12 Votes
Option C - 13 Votees
The sentence carried out is option B.

Option A has 4 total votes.
Option B has 16 total votes.
Option C has 29 total votes.
A total of 29 citizens voted, making Option B is the most severe
sentence that a majority of the citizens support with a total of 16
votes in support and 29 votes overall.
4. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the
Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and
clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
5. The guilty party must abide by the sentence as determined in the
Poll by the Chief Justice.

K. The Judicial Log may be referenced for further interpretation or
clarification, but may not be used for criteria for review of proposed
legislation.

L. For any Judicial Review ruling or issue involved with a Citizen Complaint,
each Justices must post independently their opinion on the matter. In
essence, they must answer the question asked by the Judicial Review
in a Yes or No fashion (have "Merit" or "No Merit" also applies here).
Specifically, there will be no "fence-riding". Each Justice will come down
on one side of the issue or the other, clearly.

==================================================
The Judical Review Docket
==================================================

DG6 JR#1 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2604448&postcount=23)
Filed by: Provolution
Status: Ruled Upon
Regarding: Legality of a non registered citizen being appointed to Vice President

DG6 JR#2 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2605549&postcount=46)
Filed by: Provolution
Status: Ruled Upon
Regarding: Legality of the Vice President being removed from office because of not posting within 3 days.

DG6 JR#3 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2607225&postcount=67)
Filed by: mhcarver
Status: Ruled Upon
Regarding: Definition of "Mid-term" in the Vice President's desciption

DG6 JR#4 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2615522&postcount=125)
Filed by: Ashburnham
Status: Ruled Upon
Regarding: Constitutionality of Requiring Vice President to be approved by the Consuls

DG6 JR#5 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2616556&postcount=128)
+http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2616556&postcount=129
Filed by: ravensfire
Status: Sent to be polled
Regarding: Legislation to Change Amending Constitution/CoL

DG6 JR#6 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2609925&postcount=107)
Filed by: Strider
Status: Merit Approved
Regarding: Legislation to Change Election CoL

DG6 JR#7 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2623316&postcount=137)
Filed by: ravensfire
Status: Merit Approved
Regarding: Chain of Command Legislation, in CoL

==================================================
The Citizen Complaint Docket
==================================================

well seeing as to I'm out in the cold this term I would like to volunteer myself to be a pro-tem justice should anybody need one

well seeing as to I'm out in the cold this term I would like to volunteer myselg to be a pro-tem justice should anybody need one
I have added a roster, however I am not shur how pro terms are selected.... as we have no constitution.... heck the 3 justices arent official yet... I will put you on a list :)

Here's a first order request for the judiciary. Number and order the current amendments of the constitution, as well as those that still need tweaking and wording translated to "legalese".

Also--not to be a nitpicker--you misspelled "experiment", Chief Justice. :rolleyes:

Other than that, I'm honored to be part of what looks to be an extremely qualified Judiciary.

Also--not to be a nitpicker--you misspelled "experiment", Chief Justice. :rolleyes:

Other than that, I'm honored to be part of what looks to be an extremely qualified Judiciary.
where ;)

CT - This is the role of all citizens, the justices will most likely be spearheading this operation, but are not doing it themselves.

'Tis a find day to found the new Courtroom, Mr. Chief Justice! Now, do we hvae anything other than three large rocks for us, and tree logs for everyone else?

No?

Ah well - quick cases for all then!

The Defender of the Public has moved into his new hut, and is ready for business.

-- Ravensfire

CT - since you're running the ruleset stuff - what's the status on things, and what has been finalized. If you'll point me to the sections that are polled and complete, I'll format them into a final version. I don't, however, know where things are. You probably are the only one that does.

-- Ravensfire

'Tis a find day to found the new Courtroom, Mr. Chief Justice! Now, do we hvae anything other than three large rocks for us, and tree logs for everyone else?
It is a bit odd having a firmly established Judiciary before we even have a city to call home. :D
Oh well, I'm sure building a courthouse will be priority #1 once our people decide to stop being nomadic.

http://d21c.com/TheHeatons/johnhuang/neanderthal.jpg
The Judiciary looks for a court to call their own.

"now thats we gots ourselves a new court house, lets haves ourselves a hanging!"

we are hanging nobody ;)

I also volunteer to be a temp :)

We could hold court next to the gallows, save some time.

I'm glad to see the old judicial tradition is being honored: "Give the gentleman a fair and impartial hearing, then hang the guilty bastard!"

Better yet, put the defendant under the noose. If declared guilty, execution is done on the spot :P. Otherwise the innocent party goes free! (Sounds like the French Revolution).

Please excuse my ignorance, but where is the ruleset? I don't see it anywhere.

Please excuse my ignorance, but where is the ruleset? I don't see it anywhere.
no ignorance on your part, there is none...
we have a few scattered articles, but nothing more...
complain to CT...

Hm... no JRs yet!

I think we need a full Constitution to work on, before we can develop the needed amendments. For sure, this is NOT a flawless constitution, but an improvement to traditional.

Hm... no JRs yet!
Don't worry, they'll come. ;)

I open the first judicial review of DG VI

President Daveshack has wrongfully nominated and appointed a non-registered Fanatannian citizen as his Vice President. Even though Donsig is a household name for the DGs, many find it unfair that Daveshack has bypassed several perfectly eligible candidates registered prior to the 1 of March election day.

I need to see these principles added into our constitution.

All positions in a term within the Chain of Command, city naming list and unit naming list MUST be registered prior to relevant election day. All appointments of the VP must be substantiated, validated and argumented for in the choice of the various candidates, and not kept secret on the PMs as it is a forum game. I would also make this JR inquire whether or not the appoinment of Donsig has violated the Right to Information, and would request President Daveshack to post all the PMed answers of nominated candidates in the Judicial Review thread, as the public should know the process that lead to this selection. Finally, I would also like to mention that a violation of election codes and principles could lead to a CC if the JR is ignored on its fair merits. I give the President the benefit of the doubt here, and would give due time to find a proper and legitimate replacement.

Question: Did the President follow the election laws and appointment laws when appointing a non-registered citizen as President ?

Follow up questions.

1. Did the President respect the Right to Information win choosing between the nominated candidates and why are not the process of selecting the appointed VP presented in the Public?

2. Should the Vice Presidential Appointment Process be public or private?

3. Is the Judiciary itself neutral in this process, or will they favor an old known name over legally registered citizens?

4. Do we need a regulated procedure for the VP appointment ?

5. Will a suspension of the non-registered citizen be required per the constitution and conventional DG principles be required and would equality to the law and equal citizen rights be more important than cronyism, historical bonds and favoritism based on personal preference?

Here follows the cited law:


Article X. The government will consist of four branches: Strategic Branch, Tactical Branch, Judicial Branch, and the General Assembly,

Article X. The Strategic Branch consists of the President, the Vice President,
and the Consuls. The Consuls, as listed below, are in tasked with deciding on the broader picture of how $COUNTRY_NAME will operate.
1. President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple areas of different Consuls. He/she will also decide on any strategic tasks not designated to another consul in this constitution. The President is the primary designated player. He/she has the following responsibilities, and may appoint a citizen to oversee a responsibility: Naming of Cities and Units, Elections, and Polling Standards. These appointed officials remain in office until removed by a President. The President also leads discussion on how to use military and scientific great leaders.

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may take over the President's tasks when the President is absent. If the President should be removed from office for any reason the Vice President will then take the position of President and appoint a Vice President. The Vice President must be approved by a majority of the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.


Article X. The government will consist of four branches: Strategic Branch, Tactical Branch, Judicial Branch, and the General Assembly,

For this section I propose the following amendment:

Article X. The government will consist of four branches: Strategic Branch, Tactical Branch, Judicial Branch, and the General Assembly, and each official in the Chain of Command must be a registered citizen prior to the election date of the Presidential Election with retroactive powers.

New section to be looked at.


Article X. The Strategic Branch consists of the President, the Vice President,
and the Consuls. The Consuls, as listed below, are in tasked with deciding on the broader picture of how $COUNTRY_NAME will operate.
1. President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple areas of different Consuls. He/she will also decide on any strategic tasks not designated to another consul in this constitution. The President is the primary designated player. He/she has the following responsibilities, and may appoint a citizen to oversee a responsibility: , Naming of Cities and Units, Elections, and Polling Standards. These appointed officials remain in office until removed by a President. The President also leads discussion on how to use military and scientific great leaders.

Here the main problem is that the VP appointment process is not specified.
It is also not specified the VP is a citizen or not, which should be mandatory.
Also, the VP should be subject to a citizen approval poll as well as a Consular approval in said citizen approval poll. Here is the amendment proposal:

Article X. The Strategic Branch consists of the President, the Vice President,
and the Consuls. The Consuls, as listed below, are in tasked with deciding on the broader picture of how $COUNTRY_NAME will operate.
1. President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple areas of different Consuls. He/she will also decide on any strategic tasks not designated to another consul in this constitution. The President is the primary designated player. He/she has the following responsibilities, and may appoint a pre-election registered citizen to oversee a responsibility: Vice President, Naming of Cities and Units, Elections, and Polling Standards. These appointed officials remain in office until removed by a President. The President also leads discussion on how to use military and scientific great leaders.

Final article section subjected to scrutiny and amendment proposal:

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may take over the President's tasks when the President is absent. If the President should be removed from office for any reason the Vice President will then take the position of President and appoint a Vice President. The Vice President must be approved by a majority of the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

This is the second most important position in the nation and should be considered as such. Under all circumstances, the VP should be considered and
approved by the Consuls and given a tie between the Consuls in a public approval poll. For the proper procedure I propose the following amendment:


2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may take over the President's tasks when the President is absent. If the President should be removed from office for any reason the Vice President will then take the position of President and appoint a Vice President. The Vice President must be approved by a majority of the consuls, if the Vice President DELETE is appointed mid-term.ADD is contested in a Consular tie vote, the Vice President nominee is put up for a public approval poll

By the way, I may need to reconsider my signature again,

I see no question in your post provo, you just have things that should happen to the rules. The judiciary may not create new rules, only interperet old ones.

I will however not decide merit for this JR yet, as we need to finish our judicial procdures.

However, that means that the VP appointment has to be suspended until the JR is complete, or the Judiciary will lose a lot of respect. I removed my Kangaroo Court signature, but may add it again as a reminder.

I also added in the question.

However, that means that the VP appointment has to be suspended until the JR is complete, or the Judiciary will lose a lot of respect. I removed my Kangaroo Court signature, but may add it again as a reminder.

I also added in the question.
no, innocent unless proven guilty...

Black Hole, the person is not even a citizen, thusly not protected by the courts, be certain you do not wall yourself in here.

I would like to bring forth the Judicial Procedures:
1. The Judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief Justice, the
Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.

2. All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and
responsibilities.
A. Discuss the Court Procedures, as composed by the Chief Justice,
in a most constructive way, and ratify when reaching consensus.
B. Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and
any lower laws.
C. Do not have Deputies, but may appoint Pro-Tem officials
(Pro-Tem CJ, Pro-Tem PD, and Pro-Tem JA) if they are unable
to fulfil their duties.
Pro-Tem officials have all the rights and responsibilities of the
officials they are filling in for, but are a temporary position, and
must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official.
The pro-tem status may be given for individual assignments or for the
entirety of the official (this must be declared).
D. Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews to determine the legality
of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form
of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
E. Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews (JRs) to interpret and
clarify existing Constitutional Articles and any other form of lower
law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
F. Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews to examine whether
or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
G. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

3. The Chief Justice ~
A. Performs as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge
Advocate in the absence of either official. This duty shall only apply
if said officials have not appointed a Pro-Tem official.
B. Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial
thread at the beginning of the Term.
C. Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
D. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on
topic and procedurally accurate.
E. If the situation arises where the actions of a Leader (Advisor) of a
Department fall within the parameters of being absent from a position,
as set forth by CoL Section G.3, the Chief Justice may declare said
Office vacant.

4. The Public Defender ~
A. Is tasked with ensuring all Citizens’ Complaint investigations are
performed correctly, with deference to the presumed innocence
of the accused.
B. Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought
against him and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused
can mount an effective defence.
C. Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

5. The Judge Advocate ~
A. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations
and trial.
B. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
C. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any
anonymous accusers.

6. All Judicial Review and Investigations will be held publicly. Public
communication between the Justices will be posted in the Judicial thread
or the Investigation threads.

7. Judicial Review
A. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the
Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and
laws.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not
conflict with existing rules.
4. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the
House with details of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then
be edited and resubmitted for Review.
5. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as
a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.
C. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
1. Any member of the house may request a Judicial Review for
interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. The existing Law
must be clearly stated in the request.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
3. The Chief Justice has the right to dismiss a Judicial Review,
if the Chief Justice deemes a Judicial Review to have "No Merit".
i. Specific reasoning must be given by the Chief Justice for a
judgement of "No Merit".
ii. If the Judge Advocate and the Public Defender believe that the
Judicial Review has merit, while the Chief Justice dismissed a
Judicial Review, the Majority Opinion will be followed.
4. Anyone, including justices, may request the Judicial Review to receive
a thread in the Citizen's Forum. This thread will be posted by the
Chief Justice.
5. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification,
forming a Majority Opinion.
6. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial
Log for reference.
D. Dismissal of Investigations deemed as having "No Merit".
1. 3 of 3 Justices must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit".
2. Specific reasoning must be given by each Justice for a judgement
of "No Merit".

8. Citizen's Complaint
A. If any citizen believes that someone has violated an Article of the
Constitution or any other lower form of law, they can report this
suspected violation for investigation and trial.
1. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
2. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via
Private Message.
B. Allegations of misconduct must include:
1. Name of the defendant.
2. The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
3. When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.
C. The Citizen's Complaint will be included in the Court’s Docket.
D. The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused
of the charge(s).
E. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done (see 7.D above)
to determine if the charges have "No Merit".
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate
opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
1. The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public
Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s)
(Defence). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish
(within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been
posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these
reserved spots and anyone can post.
G. Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s),
whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and
if the case should go to Trial.
H. If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves
to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the
investigation thread early if this occurs.
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed,
the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.
1. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent and Abstain
and will remain open for 48 hours.
2. In the event the Trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the
Judiciary will determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty by
posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Trial poll.
J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll
is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1. The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the
following Options:
i. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
ii. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
iii. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
iv. Warning
v. No Punishment
vi. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the
current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing
poll narrative.
3. Once the poll has been closed, the Chief Justice shall determine the
sentence for the accused.
i. Each vote shall be determined as a vote for the option selected,
and all less-severe options.
ii. The sentence selected shall be the most severe sentence that a
majority of the citizens supported.

Example:Option A- 4 Votes
Option B - 12 Votes
Option C - 13 Votees
The sentence carried out is option B.

Option A has 4 total votes.
Option B has 16 total votes.
Option C has 29 total votes.
A total of 29 citizens voted, making Option B is the most severe
sentence that a majority of the citizens support with a total of 16
votes in support and 29 votes overall.
4. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the
Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and
clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
5. The guilty party must abide by the sentence as determined in the
Poll by the Chief Justice.

K. The Judicial Log may be referenced for further interpretation or
clarification, but may not be used for criteria for review of proposed
legislation.

L. For any Judicial Review ruling or issue involved with a Citizen Complaint,
each Justices must post independently their opinion on the matter. In
essence, they must answer the question asked by the Judicial Review
in a Yes or No fashion (have "Merit" or "No Merit" also applies here).
Specifically, there will be no "fence-riding". Each Justice will come down
on one side of the issue or the other, clearly.

Notes:
This is very close to term 6 procdures, these will be changed later, depending on how discussion goes
Anonymous CCs may still be filed, waiting for more discussion before changing this.
I have yet to add in a remedy option for CCs, as this needs to be discussed

I approve of the Judicial Procedures

Provo: I suggest you cite an article with your JR. Once the procedures are approved by ravensfire and Ashburnham, I will rule your JR to have no merit, since a law must be specified.

We will worry about donsigs rights when the JR starts, if it starts... Until then he will remain Vice President, because there is no law saying that an elected official has to be a citizen.

HAhaha, now you made my day Black Hole, now I go into the legal Skunkworks here, see you in the threads.

HAhaha, now you made my day Black Hole, now I go into the legal Skunkworks here, see you in the threads.
sorry provo, I dont like to follow uncited laws, I know it sounds very strange, but that is the way it is.

Mr. Chief Justice,

The Office of the Public Defender has reviewed your procedures. We agree with them as presented.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Black Hole, I added the requested Article, and when I am at it, I will try to improve the remainder of the constitution.

Provo - FYI, the discussion about amendments need to go in a new thread in the Citizens forum, not in a JR request.

-- Ravensfire

Well ,, the JR is still valid, as I cited the Article and asked questions, you are free to ignore the amendments, which I am certain is not well greeted by the Judiciary.
I will repost the amendment in the citizen thread.

a question provo:
if donsig registers will you dismiss the JR, or are we going to have to go through with it?

We have to shape up our legislation, the constitutional flaws are still there to be repaired.
I also suggest we delay the appointment to Mid Term, which is 15 of March, and make the Consuls approve the VP according to constitution in such a situation.
Remember, a JR is to improve a law, not to find any culprits, I did not file a CC and would never dare to with this constituency.

You know, I don't think there is even a JR here. No where does it say the VP has to be registered :p. Provo, why don't you just make an amendment that says all offices must be held by citizens or something like that?

The Judiciary can't try someone for a law that doesn't exist, they can't stop the executive branch from doing something that isn't prohibited.

If it were the case that we had a ratified constitution and such, then this would have JR merit, but we don't. This kind of thing doesn't really require a JR either, Donsig can resign, go and sign up in the citizen registry, and be reappointed, since VP isn't an elected position.

Blackheart, not needed to campaign against me. I found a flaw in the law, and presented a JR seeking to fix it. DS and Donsigs mistakes are small issues compared to the big black hole in the law.

Blackheart, not needed to campaign against me. I found a flaw in the law, and presented a JR seeking to fix it. DS and Donsigs mistakes are small issues compared to the big black hole in the law.

Edited the first post while you were typing, no campaigning...

Well, In place of gratitude for seeking to fix the problem, admit being a bit blunt, I get sour comments on spoiling the mad max anarchosyndicalist paradise. This JR is to nail in all holes, and make people crystal clear about the integrity of the registry.
I am amazed so few people care about it, given rack records in similar cases.

Well, In place of gratitude for seeking to fix the problem, admit being a bit blunt, I get sour comments on spoiling the mad max anarchosyndicalist paradise. This JR is to nail in all holes, and make people crystal clear about the integrity of the registry.
I am amazed so few people care about it, given rack records in similar cases.

Could we veer away from personal gratification and focus on the nature of this thread, judicial matters?

The 3 Justice still need to rule on this, I was just stating my opinion.

provo we cant fill in these "black holes" we just interperet somehting that isnt clear

Well, you interpret for this term, and I fill in the black holes in the constitution, with the help of constructive, target oriented citizens.

I, too, agree with the court procedures as presented by our esteemed Chief Justice. Let's get this court underway!


Ashburnham,
Judge Advocate.

Judical review 2.

As the supposed VP Donsig is already mentioned in a different review, I am posting this review on the violation of the Article of Vacant Offices.

Donsig has not posted a notification of a leave of absence (maximum 7 days)
Donsig has not posted in general the last 7 days, reference to DGVI citizen registry, the last 5 days, reference to DGVI laws for not posting in 3 days call for the Judiciary state the Office is considered vacant and a new official appointed.

Question. Has Donsig violated the following Article based on failure to post both acceptance AND any other post, transgressing the 3 day limit for the Judiciary to define the vacancy of a vacant office?
Did Donsig Post a Notification of Absence?

2. Vacant Offices
a. An official or Justice may declare themselves to be Absent for
a period of time. This period may not exceed 1 week. During
this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act with all power and
duties of that office, surrendering them to the official or
Justice when they return or at the end of the planned absence,
whichever comes first.

b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3 days in
a thread related to their area without prior notice, the
Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

c. If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter for
three days, the remaining Justices may declare the Justice
Vacant. If all three Justices fail to post on any active
Judicial matter for 3 days, the President may declare all
Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately appoint a new Chief
Justice.

Read this constitutional part on the Vacancy. Officials need to post at least every 3 days, and if they don't, the Judiciary need to ask the President to find a replacement.
So now we are having two parallel cases, one of citizen registry AND the posting requirements by officials, not to mention the notified absence which could have been a secutity vent. A neutral Judiciary would replace the VP in such a situation.

I, as Chief Justice, find that Provolutions JRs(both) have merit. They will be added to the docket and summarized(possibly later today)
I would like to ask for any citizen input.

a neutral Judiciary would not remove anyone until after the JRs are complete provo. Just because you file 2, doesnt mean it will make it go any faster, it will actually take longer now.

In the matter of DGVIJR1 the central questio here is wether or not a person needs to be a citizen in order to be appointed. Our constitution has this to say on citizens:
We, the people of Fanatannia, in order to create an atmosphere of
friendship, cooperation, and pride, establish this Constitution of our
beloved country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have an
equal voice in the government and ruling of our country, that
government itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that
rules, regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the
active participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and
desires of the citizens.

Article A. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair and speedy trial, the
right to representation, the right to name units (within
the naming convention), the right to request an
investigation into possible violations of law and the
right to vote.

There are 2 bold parts that I think need to be considered
beggining is the second bolded section which reads "Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair and speedy trial, right to representation, the right to name units (within the naming convention), the right to request an investigation into possible violations of law and the right to vote" Nowhere in there does it say that one must be a citizen to hold office. However the first bolded portion reads "We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have an equal voice in the government and ruling of our country". I would like to say I believe that an equal voice in the government means that all citizens may run for and serve in any office. Under this standard one must be citizen. Also the right to vote can be construed as the right to serve Since the constitution does not say that a non-citizen must can serve , and the above defines the rights of a citizen as being able to participate in Gov't I believe that one must be a citizen in order to hold office.

In the matter of JR2
It should not be required that Donsig post acceptance since the fact he applied for the job can be considered acceptance. However the fact he is not a citizen should make the appointment invalid, and the fact that he has not posted for three days makes him absent because he is by definition an official, even though I personally believe that the VP and deputies should not be put under the same absence requirments

MhCarver

Being a citizen is needed to get a "fair and speedy trial" and "representation", and the courts should not even consider non-citizens. And for the offices, in the spirit of the Demogame, no one is meant to have an office without Citizenship, and reading the entire preamble may translate an "equal voice in the government and ruling of our country" AND "representation" as key arguments for not letting non-citizens holding offices. The key principle here, is that non-registered players from previous DGs are not excluding new citizens from participating from a real office.

Also, the approval poll is also technically valid as Daveshack once again Appointed Donsig 7 March. 04.09 AM. Read Presidential Thread.

I agree that a person must be registered as a citizen to hold an office, but respectfully suggest that we should use a "grace period" instead of just throwing someone out with essentially no warning at all. This would go for any case where it is discovered that someone is not a citizen. Even on vacancies, in prior games we followed due process, which consisted of the CJ or designate attempting to contact the missing person, and a 24 hour delay between the request to declare an official missing and actually declaring the office vacant.

I will also point out that almost 4 days passed between the appointment in question and the filing of these reviews. I have not scanned every thread to find the first mention of the discrepancy, but as soon as official notice was taken of the problem, I did take immediate action to start a 24 hour grace period within which Donsig must respond or the (previous) appointment will be withdrawn. This was not a "re-appointment" as Provolution argues, instead it was merely setting a deadline within which a response must be received for the existing appointment to remain valid.

I will also bring to the Justices attention that we do not seem to have a rule mandating there has to be an appointment at all, or a timeframe within which the appointment must be made. Also, not that it can be used as actual precedent, but we had a case in a previous demogame where an attempt was made to argue that if an office was never filled for the term, then any appointment was a mid-term appointment. The ruling in that case was that the office had never been filled, so it can't be considered vacant mid-term, it is vacant at beginning of term.

Daveshack, you posted this today a few hours ago, where you tasked me to post an approval poll as a better remedy, and I loyally followed that advice to letter.

On the legality of the appointment, we have had cases of nominations being accepted by non-registered people, and typically the problem is resolved by having that person register. Nominations have to be explicitly accepte in public. Likewise this same principle should be used for appointments. I will set a 24 hour time for donsig to register and accept the appointment, after which the appointment must be assumed to be unaccepted, and a new candidate will be chosen.

There were three candidates who applied via PM. The choice was a very difficult one because all three are unable to serve as DP at present (don't have Conquests) and have somewhat similar interests. I had written draft appointment announcements for all three at various times. I finally decided on donsig because his interest in making sure that citizens have full information in the forum coincided with one of the things I was hoping a vice president could do.

Provolution, you had a better mechanism of challenging this appointment at your disposal. Just post an approval poll "do you approve of this appointment Y/N/A?", private, and 48 hour duration.

You gav him 24 hours, which is a de facto and de jure appointment, since reminders are not covered in our legislation, appointment is the only applicable term for all this.
Regardless, it is a matter of trust, being 2nd in command is an earnt trust, and the citizenry has the right to contest that. Now I observe that someone is trying to buy Donsig time, after having let the office stand empty for well a full week.

Daveshack, if you are honorable, you let the approval poll run its course, and sustain the fact that you indeed made an appointment, and almost a week is too long a time for us to accept the nominee, as the non-citizen nominee is not fulfilling his tasks.
Especially since you recommended the approval poll yourself, I expect you to let people speak their mind through this approved approval poll with private vote, and let your Judiciary accept it as the Voice of the Peoples verdict in this situation.

Chief Justice Ruling of JR#1
It clearly says in the Code of Laws that it must be a citizen appointed to a deputy.
4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.
Thus the appointment of donsig is invalid, and the confirmation poll is still invalid for multiple reasons. However upon donsig registering, the President may reappoint him, in which time a valid confirmation poll may be posted. This will also be considered a mid term appointment, thus donsig must be approved by the majority of the consuls as in this article:
2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may
take over the President's tasks when the President is
absent. If the President should be removed from office
for any reason the Vice President will then take the
position of President and appoint a Vice President.
The Vice President must be approved by a majority of
the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

I also hope that in the future JRs can be handled out of court(which could have easily been done here)

summary:
The appointment of donsig is invalid, however after donsig registers he may be reappointed.

The Chief Justice's Office

Provolution comes before the court asking if a non-citizen may be appointed to a Deputy position.

Citizen comments
The Office of the Public Defender notes the comments by Provolution, blackheart, mhcarver, and DaveShack. All are thanked for their efforts.

Relevant law
Con. Article A: "All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country."

CoL. Section 4.a: "... the leader may appoint the citizen of their choice as deputy"

Analysis
At the heart, this is a fairly simple request - is it possible for a non-citizen to be appointed to a deputy position. Clearly, section 4.a of the Code of Laws prevents this, requiring that a citizen be appointed. The method for citizenship is also clear, register in the Citizen Registry thread.

We are not, however, a nation of strict, draconian laws, where only the most severe options are used. We're supposed to be a nation of CFC members with a mutual desire to play a game as a group. Implicit in that desire is mutual respect for other members, and tolerance of minor mistakes. The intent behind this Judicial Review request goes against those precepts. I quote from our preamble: "We, the people of Fanatannia, in order to create an atmosphere of friendship, cooperation and pride..."

To me, part of the spirit of friendship involves allowing others to own up to and correct mistakes. This was not done here. Instead, a viscous and unwarranted onslaught was launched. I am gravely disappointed in this action. Where's the harm in a gentle reminder, a request to that citizen to register themselves. None. Indeed, the amount of respect that citizen would have towards the one making the request is likely to go up. Friends allow friends to correct problems before they become larger issues.

The Judiciary should be an option of last resort, not as the opening salvo. When there is a genuine question about the law - that's a perfectly valid reason to bring to the Judiciary early. However, as I've noted above, the law is pretty clear about this matter - you need to be a citizen to be a deputy (or, for that matter, any official). It's equally clear that this JR is not intended to clarify the law, but to use the Judiciary to push the issue. While it's true that this isn't anything prohibited, and that this use is greatly preferred over a CC (which logically could have been filed over this), it's still clearly a misuse of the Judiciary. I hope to never see such a case again.

Ruling
Anyone appointed to a deputy position must be a citizen of Fanatannia. If it is discovered that they are not a citizen, they must register within 3 days of being notified. Failure to do so results in the nullification of the appointment.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Further note from the Office of the Public Defender:

I've had my opinion written for some time now. When I saw the CJ's ruling was up, I posted mine.

I concur with his Opinion that should the appointment be nullified, the President may reappoint donsig once he registers, and that this is treated as a mid-term appointment.

-- Ravensfire

ARGH!!!! duplicate post - sorry.

"We are a hedge, please move on"
-- a bunch of ninjas

-- Ravensfire

My apologies Mr. Public Defender, I read your pm but didn't know you were posting right now.

My apologies Mr. Public Defender, I read your pm but didn't know you were posting right now.
Well, it was getting posted before I was going home (which is in 15 minutes), so I only sped my post up by a bit!

Nice opinion though - had to add my extra point after reading yours!

-- Ravensfire

We will need a clarification. The CJ opinion does not mention mid-term appointment, while the PD one does. I maintain that this cannot be considered a mid-term appointment because the office has not yet been validly filled.

Oh, and gotta go make a thread for amending that mid-term appointment thing. Don't know where that came from, it wasn't on the crib notes... :lol:

We will need a clarification. The CJ opinion does not mention mid-term appointment, while the PD one does. I maintain that this cannot be considered a mid-term appointment because the office has not yet been validly filled.

Oh, and gotta go make a thread for amending that mid-term appointment thing. Don't know where that came from, it wasn't on the crib notes... :lol:
mine did.... Make sure you have your spectacles on Mr. President, o wait... do we have those?

Actually it was an idea of mine, and I put it in the rough draft, and no one complained about it...
By mid term it was meant after the term started....

We will need a clarification. The CJ opinion does not mention mid-term appointment, while the PD one does. I maintain that this cannot be considered a mid-term appointment because the office has not yet been validly filled.

Oh, and gotta go make a thread for amending that mid-term appointment thing. Don't know where that came from, it wasn't on the crib notes... :lol:

Err, actually the CJ does mention the mid-term, the PD did not, at first.
This will also be considered a mid term appointment, thus donsig must be approved by the majority of the consuls as in this article:DaveShack, given that it's now the 7th of the month, at some point even the initial appointment needs to be considered mid-term. This is also a rather unique set of circumstances.

To think a simple PM, or posted request could have handled this ....

-- Ravensfire

Provolution: Your second JR is now irrelevant, please reword without the names of citizens. Something like: "Are deputies required to post every three days?"

Thank-You!
Office of the Chief Justice

To think a simple PM, or posted request could have handled this ....


Politicians and beauracrats and witch hunts, unfortunately, don't like simplicity.

Provolution: Your second JR is now irrelevant, please reword without the names of citizens. Something like: "Are deputies required to post every three days?"

Thank-You!
Office of the Chief Justice

Actually, Black_Hole, take a close look at the law in question. In particular, note the word "may".

Something to consider ...

-- Ravensfire

Actually, Black_Hole, take a close look at the law in question. In particular, note the word "may".

Something to consider ...

-- Ravensfire
Actually after the current events, I can see why the writer of that put that in there. They hoped the Judiciary would be able to accept some circumstances. Good Catch!

It is always disappointing to see the judiciary thread quickly become the longest in the demogame forums. I can't believe you are expending so much energy on such a small thing. Try to have fun people...

I would like to request another Judicial review over the appointment of the Vice President. The constitution states
2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may
take over the President's tasks when the President is
absent. If the President should be removed from office
for any reason the Vice President will then take the
position of President and appoint a Vice President.
The Vice President must be approved by a majority of
the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

it also states
4. The President will appoint a citizen to any Vacant
office. If a deputy exists for that office, the
President must appoint that citizen. This appointment
may be challenged by any citizen by that citizen
posting a confirmation poll within 24 hours of the
appointment.
My question is
1. What is the definition of "mid term"? this could mean several things such as an initial appointment being rejected, the position becoming vacant by resignation or absence or the appointment being made after the 15th or 16th of the month
2. If the Vice President is confirmed by the consuls is he/she still subject to a confirmation poll by a citizen? if so must that citizen wait until before or after the consuls have voted?
3. are Citizens appointed to positions such as deputy or Vice president immediately after elections subject to confirmation polls?

*wades though all the bickerning people, past provolution shaking some poor legal aid yelling "But he was registered, damn it!" and the armys of lawyers fighting over which wich means witch".........

I might of come at a bad time, but well now that we finally have a constitution, i wanted to as you judges to explain something i have been wondering since election time....

Judicial Review Number 3

Who has the power to post instructions the Console for external policy or the Director of Commerce? I mean who actually decides when to sign a peace treaty, Trade embargo or any other agreement? And if both post instuctions who's take presidence?

heres the law:

Article D. 4. Consul for External Policy - Oversees long term planning
of policy regarding other nations. This includes
military plans, long term foreign affairs, and long term
trading goals.

and

Article E. 2. Director of Commerce - Decides on foreign affairs and trading. Sets exact tech queue. Manages budget. Adjusts slider and approves/denies requests from leaders regarding the use of gold. Also decides on espionage
missions.

I seems to me that Director of Commerce decides the actual running but then what powers does the Console of External policy have?
Is it that the Directer has the power of the former Foriegn Affairs minister and the Console has none. Becuase in the term 1 election the moderator said the Console of External Policy ".... is a merger of Military and Foreign Affairs."

Judicial Review Number 4

who has the power to issue instructions for troop movement?

Is it the Console of External Policy or the Commander of the Armed Forces.

heres the laws

Article D. 4. Consul for External Policy - Oversees long term planning
of policy regarding other nations. This includes
military plans, long term foreign affairs, and long term
trading goals.

and

Article E. 1. Commander of Armed Forces - Micromanages the military operations against foreign countries and unit (excluding worker, settler, and non-military transport) movements.

Thanks judges.

It is always disappointing to see the judiciary thread quickly become the longest in the demogame forums. I can't believe you are expending so much energy on such a small thing. Try to have fun people...

Unfortunately we can't with all the flak that can be easily solved by a gentle friendly reminder.

I find that mhcarver's JR has merit.

However nobody, your 2 JRs are easily defined by the law, no interperation is needed.
Thus I rule they have no merit(however, the other 2 justices may overrule this if they wish)
For the first one:
The consuls are long term, they do not post the instructions to do specific tasks, this is also pretty blunt in a few different places in the constitution

For the second one:

Article E. 1. Commander of Armed Forces - Micromanages the military operations against foreign countries and unit (excluding worker, settler, and non-military transport) movements.
That pretty bluntly says the Commander of Armed forces micromanages unit movements.

Office of the Chief Justice

Relevant Articles

Constitution Article A.
All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair and speedy trial, the
right to representation, the right to name units (within
the naming convention), the right to request an
investigation into possible violations of law and the
right to vote.
CoL 4.a
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.

Looking at these articles, we can clearly see that Donsig is not a citizen, becuase he never posted in the Citizen Registry. Thus, he is ineligible for any deputy positions (which the Vice Presidency is).

I concur with the ruling of my fellow Justices.

Finale

I am most happy with the Judicial Review of the cases, and very happy that our respected and talented colleague Donsig emerged in time to sign up as Citizen 95 in the registry and to become appointed yet again as Vice President after a weeks absence without notification. I also do expect an improvement of the presented articles, and not further personal criticism of the intent of the amendments but to sustain the Citizen Registry Institute above personal favors. I have seen a tendency to be rigid to some people and flexible to some people, but want this to be equal.

I will personally see to that the Constitution and Lower Laws have a minimum of contradictory points and black holes that can be misinterpreted, abused, circumvented and applied to give preferential treatment. My mission as a citizen is to see that dispensation claims and exceptions to the rule of law, overseeing of polling standards and other areas are subjected to equal treatment. I will post statistics and evaluations on how legalities are handled and if the laws and applications of laws are dealt with based on objective criteria.

I don't think using a perceived minor flaw in the law to try to drive through sweeping changes via a JR is kosher.

I would recommend that Provolution propose and campaign for his proposals.

I don't think using a perceived minor flaw in the law to try to drive through sweeping changes via a JR is kosher.

I would recommend that Provolution propose and campaign for his proposals.

Kosher? That does not apply for me, I am an omnivore that devours anything covered by the applicable and enforced laws in the country I visit as long as the food is healthy. But you are right Bill, I did indeed campaign and propose some proposals, where people should post more.

However, the JR had merit, and we have more than minor flaws in the law.

Provo - hope and pray that should you ever make a mistake and violate any of the laws that the citizens here have more respect and courtesy that you do, and allow you to correct the problem without resorting to the Judiciary.

Maybe you didn't get the point many people were making, but there aren't too many people pleased with how you handled this. There is a difference between whether you can do something, and if you should.

This will be my last post on this matter. You've managed to hit quite a few of my buttons on this one, Provo. You have a blind fascination with the ruleset, and managed to ignore the people in the game.

Respect is earned, not given.

-- Ravensfire

Let's end this here please. Eyrei.

Ravensfire mentioned that he was waiting for the CJ to put down his ruling on JR#1 before putting down his own. This struck me as a good idea, as well as an appropriate tip of the hat to our head Judge. I've decided to adopt this position, so in the future we can allow the Chief Justice his due.

Request for a Judicial Review:
Articles cited:
L. Commission of any game action by any person other than the Designated Player while carrying out their duties that is not instantly reversible without reloading the save is strictly forbidden.

Question: Can any citizen use the SpaceShip Screen (F10) to determine what other Civilizations we are competing with?

This does not seem to be a game action at all and not therefor reversible or not. As such I would expect that this info should be allowed.

Note that this info is also available in CivAssist and in the CrpSuite of software.

Also, the DG5 constitution had an article stating that anything not specifically excluded was the right of all citizens.

*sigh* I was really hoping we could cut down on the simple JRs...
Pressing any F key is not a game action, nor is it irreversible. Common sense can tell you alot when reading. Please submit JRs for things that are hard to understand, not something that could be figured out by reading the constitution.

I find Moth's JR to have no merit, again if the other 2 justices wish to overule me go ahead.

Office of the Chief Justice

I submit this to the Judiciary for review, this is amending the election cycle:

X. Elections
1. Nominations and Debate
Nominations will be created by the Election Office 8 days prior to the end of the month. Citizens may nominate themself or another citizen in this thread. Citizens may also post pre-nominations in the Election Office thread if they will not be present during the nomination period. This nomination thread should contain a description of the office. A nomination is not considered Accepted until the candidate makes an explicit post. All self-nominations are considered Accepted unless otherwise stated. All debates will take place within the nomination thread, and will continue through the end of the election cycle. Any citizen may post questions for the candidates to answer. Candidates may answer or not answer as they wish. A nomination is not considered Accepted until the candidate makes an explicit post. All self-nominations are considered Accepted unless otherwise stated.

2. Election Polls
Election polls will be created by the Election Office 4 days before the end of the month. These polls will contain the names of all Accepted candidates for the office, a description of the office, a link to the nomination thread, be set to run for 3 days and be marked private. Should a citizen Accept multiple nominations, and does not explicitly clarify which office they wish to run for, the Election Office will use the first office they Accepted. The citizen with the most votes at the close of the poll is the winner of the election. Should two or more candidates tie at the end of the election poll with the same number of votes, a runoff election of two days duration will be conducted with the tied candidates only. This process shall continue until one candidate receives the most votes.

3. General
The Election Cycle will run from the first nomination thread is opened until the last runoff poll closes. All threads and polls should be posted at before 00:00 GMT on the correct day.

will this go in the Code of Laws or Constitution?
and what article, if any will it be replacing?

Office of the Chief Justice

will this go in the Code of Laws or Constitution?
and what article, if any will it be replacing?

Office of the Chief Justice

Kind of hard to answer any of this, as last time I checked we don't have anything yet. It's just going to replace the election cycle amendment, whichever article it ends up being.

Chief Justice's Ruling on DG6 JR#2
Question: Are deputies subject to removal of office if they do not post for 3 days?
Well here is the law in question:
b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3 days in
a thread related to their area without prior notice, the
Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.
Now the key words to note are "official" and "declare that office vacant"

Now there are 2 sub questions:
1. Would it be right for the Judiciary to declare an office
2. Are deputies officials?

Question one is simple, it wouldnt be just to remove an office holder, becuae his/her deputy isn't posting.

Now number 2 is a bit trickier...
However in the constitution there are multiple referenes inferring official means elected, unless otherwise stated. Some areas say official, 1 says elected official, and others say appointed official. The authors of the constitution meant official to mean elected official as shown above.

Summary:
The Judiciary may not remove deputies that haven't posted for 3 days.

Kind of hard to answer any of this, as last time I checked we don't have anything yet. It's just going to replace the election cycle amendment, whichever article it ends up being.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113684
as in article, do you mean CoL article or Constituion article?
I dont want to guess...

IT will be replacing Section H.1, H.2, and H.3.

I find the legislation does not conflict with any other laws.
It may go on to the polling, if the other 2 justices review it and accept it.

Strider,

Could you please post your proposal in a fully-formatted version (chop it off around line 70) to make inclusion into the existnig ruleset easier for everyone involved.

I will review this once I get home.

-- Ravensfire

Strider,

Could you please post your proposal in a fully-formatted version (chop it off around line 70) to make inclusion into the existnig ruleset easier for everyone involved.

I will review this once I get home.

-- Ravensfire

Well, wether I propose it this way or not, it's still going to have to be re-done to be included inside of the existing ruleset. When you copy & paste anything that has to do with the lists and messes the lines up, so it will have to be re-formatted anyway. To put it simply, if I did make it "fully-formatted" it won't make a differance anyway, because someone will have to re-format it again anyway.

That was also my orginal reason for only using underline, bold, and italiac codes. It makes it easier to copy and paste articles of the constitution for Judicial Reviews, CC's, and amendments.

Strider,

To format it for the ruleset, use a monospaced font and don't let any line extend beyond 70 - 72 characters. The spacing stuff just get from the existing ruleset.

It's pretty easy to do.

-- Ravensfire

Strider,

To format it for the ruleset, use a monospaced font and don't let any line extend beyond 70 - 72 characters. The spacing stuff just get from the existing ruleset.

It's pretty easy to do.

Once again, I'll repeat this. Inorder to take the amendment and insert it into the constitution, you would have to copy and paste the text. However, when the list commands are used it screws up the line format (of course) when you copy and paste it elsewhere. As such, it will make no differance one way or the other, as it will have to be re-formated to be inserted into the constitution.

Once again, I'll repeat this. Inorder to take the amendment and insert it into the constitution, you would have to copy and paste the text. However, when the list commands are used it screws up the line format (of course) when you copy and paste it elsewhere. As such, it will make no differance one way or the other, as it will have to be re-formated to be inserted into the constitution.

Once again, I'll repeat this.

The ruleset is formatted as mono-spaced text (that's what the code-tag does). To format this, use any decent text editor set to a mono-spaced font. I prefer Textpad, but Word or Open Office will do perfect. Use the spacing from the ruleset - it's very consistent. End each line at 70 - 72 characters.

It's not that difficult to do.

-- Ravensfire

Once again, I'll repeat this.

The ruleset is formatted as mono-spaced text (that's what the code-tag does). To format this, use any decent text editor set to a mono-spaced font. I prefer Textpad, but Word or Open Office will do perfect. Use the spacing from the ruleset - it's very consistent. End each line at 70 - 72 characters.

It's not that difficult to do.

The purpose of that would be? Why format it when it will need to be re-formatted no matter what I do?

I would like to note that Strider's proposed amendment has not gone through the process of posting it as a mock poll and waiting 24 hours for citizen comment, prior to requesting a JR. In particular, I may wish to comment on the final form and have not been given that opportunity.

I would like to note that Strider's proposed amendment has not gone through the process of posting it as a mock poll and waiting 24 hours for citizen comment, prior to requesting a JR. In particular, I may wish to comment on the final form and have not been given that opportunity.

It just requires "each of the following" and doesn't need to happen in any certain order.

Edit: I did this hoping the Judiciary might find any repetive statements, for those can be amended later. It seems fairly stupid to post a proposed poll, just to have the Judiciary change it later.

Strider,

Once again, THIS HOW THE RULESET IS FORMATTED.

Please, give us your proposal formatted as it would be in the ruleset. You can even copy the existing ruleset into an editor and use that as your template.

Formatting guidelines:
-- Monospaced font
-- Lines end at 70 - 72 characters
-- Avoiding chopping words up
-- Two spaces after periods
-- If a clause exceeds one line, indent it to the same starting point as the first line.
-- Outline format: X.1.x.1.i.1

-- Ravenfire

Strider,

Once again, THIS HOW THE RULESET IS FORMATTED.

Please, give us your proposal formatted as it would be in the ruleset. You can even copy the existing ruleset into an editor and use that as your template.

Formatting guidelines:
-- Monospaced font
-- Lines end at 70 - 72 characters
-- Avoiding chopping words up
-- Two spaces after periods
-- If a clause exceeds one line, indent it to the same starting point as the first line.
-- Outline format: X.1.x.1.i.1

-- Ravenfire


Once again, copying anything with the codes screws up the line format. It gets even worst when you use this in conjunction with tags. This is a section of the constitution copy and pasted directly from it, with the [quote*] tags.

[QUOTE]
A. Citizen Rights
1. Naming Rights
a. City Names
All cities founded by Fanatannia will be named by citizens
using a rank-based system. The President will maintain
this list in a thread. Should a citizen fail to provide a
city name, they will be skipped until they provide a city
name. The Director of Expansion will include the city name
to be used in the instructions to found that city. No
citizen may name more than one city until all citizens
have named a city.
1. Ranking Order - elected officials
The rank order is based on the term and the Chain of
Command. All officials of an earlier term have priority
over officials of a later term. Within a term, the
Chain of Command will determine who has priority.
2. Ranking Order - citizens
Once all elected officials have named cities, the
Citizen Regsitry will be used to name cities, using the
order citizens were registered.

Doesn't look anything like it does it? As I said before, the lines get messed up. It makes it harder to read, and even harder to make it readable. As such, when whoever inserts this into the constitution, goes to do it, They will have to reformat it into the correct format anyway. Get my point yet?

Even though I find that the law doesnt violate the constitution, I am removing my approval until it is formatted. I just realised I can do this:
Article G. The Citizens make up the General Assembly. The General
Assembly is tasked with the creation of laws and leading
the elected officials. After a law is created or changed
by the citizenry, it is presented to the Judiciary to
ensure it is in the correct format and does not violate
the constitution.
And I wrote that article too :blush:

P.S. We seem to be missing the article that deals with amending the constitution in our ruleset... I can't seem to find it....

P.S. We seem to be missing the article that deals with amending the constitution in our ruleset... I can't seem to find it....

I don't think it was approved, I tried looking for it about 3 minutes ago.

Strider - use the CODE tages, not the QUOTE tags. That will correct the problem you are seeing.

-- Ravensfire

Strider - use the CODE tages, not the QUOTE tags. That will correct the problem you are seeing.

-- Ravensfire

Same problem :rolleyes:. Tried it already, there was a thread in site feedback awhile ago about this. Let me see if I can find it.

As I said before... the [quote] tags screws up the [code] tags. There is something you can do to fix it, but I have no earthly idea how.

Edit: It's actually a browser related problem, but my point still stands. It doesn't work.

works for me:

A. Citizen Rights
1. Naming Rights
a. City Names
All cities founded by Fanatannia will be named by citizens
using a rank-based system. The President will maintain
this list in a thread. Should a citizen fail to provide a
city name, they will be skipped until they provide a city
name. The Director of Expansion will include the city name
to be used in the instructions to found that city. No
citizen may name more than one city until all citizens
have named a city.
1. Ranking Order - elected officials
The rank order is based on the term and the Chain of
Command. All officials of an earlier term have priority
over officials of a later term. Within a term, the
Chain of Command will determine who has priority.
2. Ranking Order - citizens
Once all elected officials have named cities, the
Citizen Regsitry will be used to name cities, using the
order citizens were registered.

b. Province Names
The first Governor of a province will name the province.

Strider,

That's odd. The ruleset thread uses CODE tags, and it's working right. Curious, did you use tabs, or spaces. Tabs might cause problems.

Quick test:
<code> (replacing [ with < to show code used)
Line 1
Line 2 (indented with 4 spaces)
</code>


Line 1
Line 2 (indented with 4 spaces)


-- Ravensfire

Strider,

That's odd. The ruleset thread uses CODE tags, and it's working right. Curious, did you use tabs, or spaces. Tabs might cause problems.

Quick test:
<code> (replacing [ with < to show code used)
Line 1
Line 2 (indented with 4 spaces)
</code>


Line 1
Line 2 (indented with 4 spaces)


-- Ravensfire

I edited my above post:


Edit: It's actually a browser related problem, but my point still stands. It doesn't work.

Edit: Just review it, once your done I'll see what I can do and post it as a proposed poll.

Looking at the spaceship screen reveals the civs that are in the game, which is finding something that isn't known.

Looking at the spaceship screen reveals the civs that are in the game, which is finding something that isn't known.
You can find many 5 of the civs by looking at the Top cities screen. Basically its not a game action, thus not irreversible. The action must be irreversible to be an action!

It just requires "each of the following" and doesn't need to happen in any certain order.

OK, I'm fine with that, although if it changes in the discussion thread during the comment period then another JR would be necessary.

BTW it turns out in this case I'm fine with the text, and will say so in the thread too. You did good on this one! :goodjob:

Let's just take the simple road on this one. Any reason why someone can't help Strider a bit by just posting the proposed new article in the right formatting?


X. Elections
1. Nominations and Debate
Nominations will be created by the Election Office 8 days prior to
the end of the month. Citizens may nominate themself or another
citizen in this thread. Citizens may also post pre-nominations in
the Election Office thread if they will not be present during the
nomination period. This nomination thread should contain a
description of the office. A nomination is not considered
Accepted until the candidate makes an explicit post. All
self-nominations are considered Accepted unless otherwise stated.
All debates will take place within the nomination thread, and
will continue through the end of the election cycle. Any citizen
may post questions for the candidates to answer. Candidates may
answer or not answer as they wish.

2. Election Polls
Election polls will be created by the Election Office 4 days
before the end of the month. These polls will contain the names
of all Accepted candidates for the office, a description of the
office, a link to the nomination thread, be set to run for 3 days
and be marked private. Should a citizen Accept multiple
nominations, and does not explicitly clarify which office they
wish to run for, the Election Office will use the first office
they Accepted. The citizen with the most votes at the close of
the poll is the winner of the election. Should two or more
candidates tie at the end of the election poll with the same
number of votes, a runoff election of two days duration will be
conducted with the tied candidates only. This process shall
continue until one candidate receives the most votes.

3. General
The Election Cycle will run from the first nomination thread is
opened until the last runoff poll closes. All threads and polls
should be posted at before 00:00 GMT on the correct day.

I am putting my decision on hold for a bit... btw thanks DS!
However Strider please do not post the poll yet, ravensfire sent the approved articles dealing with amending the CoL and Constitution to the mods to be put in the constitution topic. We will need to review that first...

I am putting my decision on hold for a bit... btw thanks DS!
However Strider please do not post the poll yet, ravensfire sent the approved articles dealing with amending the CoL and Constitution to the mods to be put in the constitution topic. We will need to review that first...

It hasn't been reviewed yet either :P.

Fine by me, we have a long time untill any of this will make a huge differance. Just as long as it's in place for the next election cycle.

It hasn't been reviewed yet either :P.

Fine by me, we have a long time untill any of this will make a huge differance. Just as long as it's in place for the next election cycle.
I just love running a game without a full constitution, almost better than folgers in the morning ;)

Honorable Judiciary

I want to file a Citizen Complaint, against, surprise, citizen Provolution, for filing an unnecessary Judicial Review and disturbing the common peace.

In an effort to learn how this all works I have begun to look at the constitution. At the moment I will only concern myself with the Code of Laws, but will later look at the constitution itself. I have a few comments, questions suggestions and emotional outbursts that I will post here. I'm sorry if it is not the correct place.

Code of Laws

Missing section Here.

The Code of Laws affords each citizen of Fanatannia certain rights and obligations. The term "Citizen" is defined in Article A of the Constiturion.

A. Citizen Rights
1. Naming Rights
a. City Names
All cities [founded] by Fanatannia will be named by citizens
using a rank-based system. The President will maintain
this list in a thread. Should a citizen fail to provide a
city name, they will be skipped until they provide a city
name. The Director of Expansion will include the city name
to be used in the instructions to found that city. No
citizen may name more than one city until all citizens
have named a city. Add - Cities acquired though military or cultural means during the course of a turnset will be renamed through instructions passed by the Director of Expansion on the Pre-turn of the following turnset

The word founded means that we may not rename captured or flipped cities. I would replace "founded by" with "contained within the cultural boundaries of
1. Ranking Order - elected officials
The rank order is based on the term and the Chain of
Command. All officials of an earlier term have priority
over officials of a later term. Within a term, the
Chain of Command will determine who has priority.
2. Ranking Order - citizens
Once all elected officials have named cities, the
Citizen Regsitry will be used to name cities, using the
order citizens were registered.

Some officials are appointed. Where are they in the ranking order?

b. Province Names
The first Governor of a province will name the province.

but how is the size and shape of a province decided? How are the boundaries set? I can't find it in the constitution.

c. Unit Names
The Commander of Armed Forces will utilize the unit naming
preferences within the Citizen Registry thread to rename all
military units.

c. Cannot be implemented. The Designated Player must rename the units according to instructions passed By the commander of the Armed Forces. Then in the definition of the Commander of the Armed forces you will specify the maintenance of a list of unit names as a responsibility of that office.

d. Natural Feature Names
All natural features within a province may be named by the
Governor of the province. Add- No Governor may re-name a natural feature already named by a predecessor

2. Confirmation Polls
a. Confirmation polls are used in certain, specified
situations What certain specified conditions? They do not seem specified anywhere to me! to challenge the decision of an elected official.
Confirmation polls may be used only when explicitly allowed
by law. Any citizen may create a confirmation poll, should
one not already exist. This poll must be created within 24
hours of the appointment or decision, and ask the question
"Do you approve of the <description of decision>?", with
Yes, No and Abstain option. If the confirmation poll
directly concerns a citizen (e.g. appointment), this poll
is to be private, as it is a form of an election. The poll
will run for 2 days. At the end of the time, if a majority
of the citizens Add - who participate in the poll vote "No", the decision is overturned. Any
other result approves the decision.

H. Elections, Deputies and Vacancies
1. Nominations and Debate
a. Nominations Add - for all elected positions will be created - Replace with "accepted" by the Election Office 7 days
prior to the end of the Replace with "at any time within the last seven days of the" month. Citizens may nominate
themself- Replace with "themselves" or another citizen Replace with "other citizens" in this thread. Citizens may
also post pre-nominations in the Election Office thread if
they will not be present during the nomination period.
This nomination thread should contain a description of the
office.
b. All debates will be within Replace with "Confined to" the nomination thread, and will
continue through replace with "until" the end of the election cycle. Any citizen
may post questions for the candidates to answer. Candidates
may answer or not answer as they wish.Replace with - "Candidates are under no obligation to respond to such questions.
c. A nomination is not considered Accepted until the candidate
makes an explicit post.All self-nominations are considered
Accepted unless otherwise stated. Confusing? Replace with "Nominations are only considered accepted when the prospective candidate has posted to this effect in the Nomination Thread. An accepted nominee is then considered a candidate for the office, except where disqualified as set out in Para. 2.b"

2. Election polls
a. Election polls will be created by the Election Office 3
days after the Nomination threads are created. These polls
will contain the names of all Accepted candidates for the
office, a description of the office, a link to the
nomination thread, be set to run for 3 days and be marked
private.

Replace all this with
"Elections to Office.
Elections will be conducted by the Election Office 3 days after the Nomination Threads are posted. All candidates will be listed in the poll, along with a description of the office and a link to the relevant nomination thread. The poll will be closed 3 days after it has been posted"

[b]b. Should a citizen Accept multiple nominations, and does not
explicitly clarify which office they wish to run for, the
Election Office will use the first office they Accepted. Replace with - "A citizen may not be a candidate for more than one position. Where a citizen accepts more than one nomination then that citizens canditature for all positions will be rejected."
c. The citizen with the most votes at the close of the poll
is the winner of the election. Should two or more
candidates tie at the end of the election poll with the
same number of votes, a runoff election of two days
duration will be conducted with the tied candidates only.
This process shall continue until one candidate receives
the most votes.

I don't like 2c. The president should decide a tie breaker IMO

3. General
a. The Election Cycle will run from the first nomination thread
is opened until the last runoff poll closes.
b. All threads and polls should be posted at approximately 00:00
GMT on the correct day.

4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.

5. Vacant Offices
a. An official or Justice may declare themselves to be
Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 1
week. During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act
with all power and duties of that office, surrendering
them to the official or Justice when they return or at
the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first. What does this mean? If an office is vacated or an officer goes AWOL then the deputy must fill the position until a new election is held surely?

b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3
days in a thread related to their area without prior
notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

c. If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter
for three days, the remaining Justices may declare the
Justice Vacant. If all three Justices fail to post on
any active Judicial matter for 3 days, the President may
declare all Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately
appoint a new Chief Justice.

So what happens if an office is vacated? Do we wait until the next election cycle or re-poll immediately. Does the deputy take over - in which case we have a non-elected official who was appointed by someone who is not even contributing to the process in the position, or does the president make an appointment. This is not clear to me

I. Polling Standards
1. Any poll posted by an official of the Democracy game is considered
official and binding, unless otherwise stated.

2. All polls must simply and clearly state the question and all
options in a neutral manner, and contain an abstain option.

3. A poll should state the objectives of the poll and the time
limit (if any) of the poll.

4. A poll must also contain all releveant information, including
links to the respective ministry thread, discussion, and other
polls.

5. All official polls will be public unless they deal with
specific citizens. Those polls must be private.

What about unofficial polls and confirmation polls. Can anyone post a poll? If so where?

Mad-bax,

You'll want to start by creating a discussion thread in the Citizen's forum with the changes, and see how that runs. If there's no discussion, strong approval, post a proposed poll in that thread. This would list the before text and the after text of each section. Assuming nobody has significant problems, you'll then ask the Judiciary to review the law (it's a check for violating any other sections, not if it's a good or bad law). If that passes, the CJ will post a poll for citizens to consider.

-- Ravensfire

OK thanks. I apologise for posting in the wrong thread. I'll get the hang of it soon. :)

OK thanks. I apologise for posting in the wrong thread. I'll get the hang of it soon. :)

No harm, no foul - we're here to help!

-- Ravensfire

Honorable Judiciary

I want to file a Citizen Complaint, against, surprise, citizen Provolution, for filing an unnecessary Judicial Review and disturbing the common peace.

I find this CC to have NO MERIT. The citizen was exercising his rights, as guaranteed by Article A of the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Provolution brings before the court the following question:
Question. Has Donsig violated the following Article (CoL H.5) based on failure to post both acceptance AND any other post, transgressing the 3 day limit for the Judiciary to define the vacancy of a vacant office?
Did Donsig Post a Notification of Absence?
In addition, the question of whether deputies are officials was raised.

Citizen Comments
There were no citizen comments on this matter

Relevant Law
From Section H of the Code of Laws:
4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.

5. Vacant Offices
a. An official or Justice may declare themselves to be
Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 1
week. During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act
with all power and duties of that office, surrendering
them to the official or Justice when they return or at
the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first.

b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3
days in a thread related to their area without prior
notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.
Analysis
There are several questions in this review. In light of the events since the filing, I am considering this a generic request for future events, not specifically tied to Donsig.

From reviewing the law, there is no requirement for a citizen to post their acceptance of an appointment. A citizen may post nothing, post an acceptance or post as that appointed official (a de facto acceptance). In all three cases, the presumption must be made that the citizen has accepted that appointment.

There is also, however, nothing that bars an official from rescinding that appointment, unless the appointment is to an elected office. It is in the best interests of Fanatannia that once a citizen has been appointed to a Vacant office, that citizen may not be removed except through due process.

The second question concerns the requirement for officials to post every 3 days. Should an official fail to post for 3 consecutive days, "the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant." The key word in that clause is "may". The Judiciary is free to review all circumstances around the situation to determine if the office should be declared vacant.

Finally, the question of whether deputies are considered officials. Section 5.a of the Code of Laws ("An official or Justice may declare themselves to be Absent for a period of time. ... During this time, the deputy or pro-tem...") It is clear that deputies are not considered officials, unless they are acting as the official due to an Absence or have directed to do so by that official.

Ruling
There is no requirement for an appointed official to post their acceptance of that appointment. Likewise, there is nothing to bar an official from rescinding an appointment to a non-elected position.

There is also no requirement that the Judiciary MUST declare an office vacant if the citizen holding that office fails to post for 3 consecutive days. The Judiciary may consider all factors when making their decision.

Finally, Deputies are not considered officials unless they are acting as such during an Absence or are directed to do so.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

mhcarver brings before the court the following questions:
1. What is the definition of "mid term"? this could mean several things such as an initial appointment being rejected, the position becoming vacant by resignation or absence or the appointment being made after the 15th or 16th of the month
2. If the Vice President is confirmed by the consuls is he/she still subject to a confirmation poll by a citizen? if so must that citizen wait until before or after the consuls have voted?
3. are Citizens appointed to positions such as deputy or Vice president immediately after elections subject to confirmation polls?

Quick format - skipping my usual sections due to time constraints

Ruling
1. A mid term appointment is any appointment after the first "cycle" of appointments, if this first cycle happens within a reasonable amount of time after starts. A cycle is an uninterrupted process of finding a citizen to be appointed, including confirmation polls and a brief period to find candidates. A citizen may be appointed only once in a cycle.

An example is citizen A is appointed to a vacant office. There is a confirmation vote that results in the appointment being over-turned. Citizen B is then appointed, and again the confirmation votes fails. The President waits a week, then appoints citizen C. Citizen's A and B are normal appointments, citizen C is a mid-term appointment.

2. Currently, there is no process to challenge the appointment of any citizen to a deputy position, so this question is moot.

3, There currently is no process to challenge the appointment of any citizen to a deputy position, including the Vice-Presidency.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

The Office of the Public Defender concurs with the Chief Justice's comments on the JR's requested by Nobody.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

The original Review request:Question. Has Donsig violated the following Article (CoL H.5) based on failure to post both acceptance AND any other post, transgressing the 3 day limit for the Judiciary to define the vacancy of a vacant office?
Did Donsig Post a Notification of Absence?


Relevant Articles

CoL Section H.5
5. Vacant Offices
a. An official or Justice may declare themselves to be
Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 1
week. During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act
with all power and duties of that office, surrendering
them to the official or Justice when they return or at
the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first.

b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3
days in a thread related to their area without prior
notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.
Firstly, I have to say that I disapprove of using the word "violated". For reasons I will state below, no violation of the law was performed.

To start: no, Donsig was not in violation of the law by failing to post an acceptence of his appointment. There's nothing in the books that requires such a move, so he certainly can't be in violation of it. Secondly, while it is true that Donsig went more than 3 days without a post, all that means is that the Judiciary then has the right to declare him absent. It's not automatic.

Conclusion
All in all, CoL H.5 worked just as it was supposed to. Nothing was "violated". There's nothing requiring an acceptence, and there's nothing requiring the Judiciary to declare an office vacent. To be fair, if a citizen had made the request to declare the Vice Presidency vacent before Donsig had registered as a citizen, I would have been hard pressed to defend his office. However, that's all in the past. As it stands now, nobody violated CoLH.5

As an aside, I would like to disagree with my colleage ravensfire about deputies not being considered "officials". I fear that making a distinction like that can only lead to further loopholes in an already loopy constitution.

I find this CC to have NO MERIT. The citizen was exercising this rights, as guaranteed by Article A of the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
agreed, the CC has no merit.

the original Review request: 1. What is the definition of "mid term"? this could mean several things such as an initial appointment being rejected, the position becoming vacant by resignation or absence or the appointment being made after the 15th or 16th of the month
2. If the Vice President is confirmed by the consuls is he/she still subject to a confirmation poll by a citizen? if so must that citizen wait until before or after the consuls have voted?
3. are Citizens appointed to positions such as deputy or Vice president immediately after elections subject to confirmation polls?


Relevant Articles

CoL Section A
2. Confirmation Polls
a. Confirmation polls are used in certain, specified
situations to challenge the decision of an elected official.
Confirmation polls may be used only when explicitly allowed
by law. Any citizen may create a confirmation poll, should
one not already exist. This poll must be created within 24
hours of the appointment or decision, and ask the question
"Do you approve of the <description of decision>?", with
Yes, No and Abstain option.

CoL Section H
4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.

Constitution Article D
2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may
take over the President's tasks when the President is
absent. If the President should be removed from office
for any reason the Vice President will then take the
position of President and appoint a Vice President.
The Vice President must be approved by a majority of
the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

I'll answer the questions in the order they were presented.

1. While the term "midterm" is mentioned several times in the Constituion and CoL, nothing firmly established what exactly the phrase means. However, all referrences to "midterm" suggest that the appointee is being appointed after an initial candidate was removed for some reason. Thus, a "midterm" appointment would be the second (or third, etc.) appointment of a term.

2. Though Col Section A.2a mentions "appointments" in its example of confirmation polls, there is currently nothing else in the books that suggests that deputy positions may be contested by citizens. As CoL Section H.4a states, officials may appoint any citizen they please.

3.The answer to #2 stands here as well.

Honorable Judiciary

I want to file a Citizen Complaint, against, surprise, citizen Provolution, for filing an unnecessary Judicial Review and disturbing the common peace.

This is quite the oddity...

I'm thinking, since we already have due process as part of the constitution, why not add in an amendment that prevents self discrimination in CCs and JRs?This would be modeled off of the US Constitution.

The reason the US Constitution has the 5th Amendment is because in American courts, it is up to the prosecutor to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, because all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I find Provo's CC against himself creepy, does anyone else?

This is quite the oddity...

I'm thinking, since we already have due process as part of the constitution, why not add in an amendment that prevents self discrimination in CCs and JRs?This would be modeled off of the US Constitution.

The reason the US Constitution has the 5th Amendment is because in American courts, it is up to the prosecutor to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, because all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I find Provo's CC against himself creepy, does anyone else?
split personality?

Acting as a citizen, I would like to present the following for Judicial Review.


4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.
CoL Section H.4a states that officials may appoint whomever they please to a deputy position. However, this conflicts with Article D.2 of the Constitution, which says that Vice Presidents are subject to approval from the Consuls.

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may
take over the President's tasks when the President is
absent. If the President should be removed from office
for any reason the Vice President will then take the
position of President and appoint a Vice President.
The Vice President must be approved by a majority of
the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

My question to my fellow justices is: Given the fact that Vice Presidents are in fact deputies, should they be subject to approval from the Consuls?

I know the approval is only necessary for mid-term appointments, but there is still an inherent discreprency in our rules. I look forward to the opinions of the court.

Article K of the Constitution posted in the Main DG6 Forum refers to the Nation of Japanatica. Who are they?

Article K of the Constitution posted in the Main DG6 Forum refers to the Nation of Japanatica. Who are they?

That was the name of our nation in DG5. A bit of an oversight, nothing more.

Proposed law for Judicial Review
Y. Amending the Code of Laws

1. A Proposed Poll post must be posted in the discussion
thread for the amendment for 24 hours before submission
to the Judiciary for review. This post must include
the current text and the proposed text.

2. Judicial approval of the Amendment.

3. A poll which is open for at least 96 hours, which states
the text of the proposed section(s), the text of the
section(s) being replaced and the posing the question
in the form of Yes/No/Abstain.

4. To pass, the proposal must meet both of the following
criteria:
a. A 55% majority of all votes cast.
b. The total number of votes must exceed 37% of the census.
Change H.4 of the Code of Laws
from: 4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.
to: 4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy. This appointment may
be challenged by a confirmation poll.
-- Ravensfire

Proposed law #2 for Judicial Review:
Article X. The Census is defined as the average number of votes cast,
dropping fractions, in each of the contested elections in
the most recent general elections.

1. Should more than 3 citizens request it within a 48
hour period in the Judiciary thread, the Chief Justice
will create a poll to determine a true Census. The results
of this poll will override any previous Census.

Article Y. As this is intended to be a living document, and can change,
this Constitution may be Amended as outlined below.

1. A Proposed Poll post must be posted in the discussion
thread for the amendment for 24 hours before submission
to the Judiciary for review. This post must include
the current text and the proposed text.

2. Judicial approval of the Amendment

3. A poll which is open for at least 96 hours, which states
the text of the proposed section(s), the text of the
section(s) being replaced and the posing the question
in the form of Yes/No/Abstain.

4. To pass, the proposal must meet one of the following
criteria:
a. A 2/3 majority of all votes cast.
b. A simple majority of all votes cast and the total
number of votes exceeds 60% of the Census.
-- Ravensfire

I find Ashburnham's JR has merit, and will be added to the docket shortly.
I also approve of the proposed legislature.

Chief Justice Ruling on JR#3
Questions asked:

1. What is the definition of "mid term"? this could mean several things such as an initial appointment being rejected, the position becoming vacant by resignation or absence or the appointment being made after the 15th or 16th of the month
2. If the Vice President is confirmed by the consuls is he/she still subject to a confirmation poll by a citizen? if so must that citizen wait until before or after the consuls have voted?
3. are Citizens appointed to positions such as deputy or Vice president immediately after elections subject to confirmation polls?

1. ravensfire has excellent wording here, basically after the first cycle
2. Deputies are not subject to a confirmation poll because it says confirmation polls may only be posted when explicitly allowed by the law, and there is no where that says that you can have a confirmation poll posted to confirm a deputy appointment.
3. Same thing as 2

2 % 3 should probably be fixed...

Also a note for future JRs, please have only 1 question... With 3 questions It is hard for me to make summaries and figure out what parts of the JRs us justices agree on.

*nobdazines walks in surrounded by his wise guys and consigleri, they are laughing like they have some personal joke* hey brownhole, and ya other Shysters hows things? hey the guy in charge "city and unit naming" donovan zoi, he anit been seen around here lately? and i think its yous guys job to fix that problem, capice.

.....................................
Greets honrable judges, i have come here to note to you people that donovan zoi has been absent as for 4 days and it is your responsability to declare him vacant. thanks in adavance- James Alistair Nobody the 3rd.

*nobdazines walks in surrounded by his wise guys and consigleri, they are laughing like they have some personal joke* hey brownhole, and ya other Shysters hows things? hey the guy in charge "city and unit naming" donovan zoi, he anit been seen around here lately? and i think its yous guys job to fix that problem, capice.

.....................................
Greets honrable judges, i have come here to note to you people that donovan zoi has been absent as for 4 days and it is your responsability to declare him vacant. thanks in adavance- James Alistair Nobody the 3rd.

My good sir, might I remind you, and your companions, that weapons of any type are certainly not permitted in the Court. And the suit on that one is as offensive as his breath!

Also, the citizen you mention doesn't hold an office, but is an aide to the President. As such, you'll need to discuss matters with him. Good day, gentlemen!

--------------------
Nobody, DZ is appointed to a non-elected office to help the President. You'll need to talk to DS on that one.

-- Ravensfire

Majority Opinion
The justices agreed that donsig's appointment was invalid. Thus you must be elected to become a deputy. However 2/3 justices mentioned that the President may wait for the person in question to register, and then reappoint him.

It should read "appointed" instead of "elected".

It should read "appointed" instead of "elected".
fixing....

Trying to catch up from a busy weekend ...

After review, Strider's proposed legislation (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2609925&postcount=107) does not violate any existing laws and should be submitted to the people for acceptance.

After review, Ravensfire's proposed (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2616553&postcount=128) legislation (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2616556&postcount=129) does not violate any existing laws and should be submitted to the people for acceptance.

Chief Justice Black_Hole, if you wouldn't mind, could you post a summary of outstanding judicial matters for Ashburnham and I, so we'll know what's out there still. I've been a bit overworked of late, and haven't kept track of matters.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Please review this proposed addition to the Code of Laws.
Discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112585&page=2)

C. Chain of Command
1. The Chain of Command will be as follows:
a. President
b. Vice-President
c. Consul for Domestic Policy
d. Consul for External Policy
e. Consul for Cultural Policy
f. Consul for Resources and Technology Policy
g. Commander of Armed Forces
h. Director of Commerce
i. Director of Infrastructure
j. Director of Expansion
k. Governors (by order of province founding)
l. Chief Justice
m. Judge Advocate
n. Public Defender

2. If the current Designated Player cannot start the game session
in a timely manner, or cannot continue, the next official in
the chain command may take over duties of DP.

3. For the purposes of playing the save, the Judiciary is not
considered part of the Chain of Command.

-- Ravensfire

I find ravensfires proposed legistlation(above this post) does is valid, and may move onto ratifacation.
Expect me to catch up on the other JRs within a few hours.... And I will attempt to figure this mess out...

I also find striders legislation to be valid, however ravensfires articles will be ratified first, because they determine how other articles are ratified...

P.S. I believe I have ruled on all JRs except #4(ashburnham asking question about vice president being subject to consul vote)

I hope this is all right, these are the JRs not ruled on by all 3 justices...
I am not shur who has ruled on what(sorry that would cause a second migraine ;)):
JR#4:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2615522&postcount=125

JR#5:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2616556&postcount=128
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2616556&postcount=129

JR#6:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2609925&postcount=107

JR#7:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2623316&postcount=137

Question withdrawn

I would like to here citizens comments on JR#4 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2615522&postcount=125)
It has got me thinking...

You already know what we think of Consul votes. So present an amendment that omist it.
Also make the VP be a running mate or a runner up to the President, so the entire CoC will be elected in a way. We need to close down this undemocratic gap.

I would like to here citizens comments on JR#4 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2615522&postcount=125)
It has got me thinking...

I think the real question here is not why the VP is subjected to a consul vote, but what is so special about a mid-term appointment that would require a consul vote. That is, is there anything inherently so different about appointing a deputy mid-term as opposed to the beginning of the term that it would require consul consultation and approval? If there is something special about a mid-term appointment, then I would think consul approval would be required for all such appointments (not just for the VP). If there isn’t something special about mid-term appointments, then this is verbiage that serves no useful purpose and should be removed.

VP should be elected or removed from CoC. Mid-term appointments should not be run.
All consular deputies should be replaced with a single elected position - Advisor to the consulate or something. He can fill in for missing consuls.

Everyone is elected - fewer people sat with thumb in bum. Happy days. :)

I understand everyones concerns, however we are not discussing what it should be, but how the laws read it. Thus I have formed my opinion

Chief Justice Opinion on JR#4
This JR comes down to one thing: the power of constitution verse code of laws.

This article:
4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.
Is in the code of laws, meaning anything in the constitution has precedence over it.
Article D:
2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may
take over the President's tasks when the President is
absent. If the President should be removed from office
for any reason the Vice President will then take the
position of President and appoint a Vice President.
The Vice President must be approved by a majority of
the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.
Is in the constitution.
This means even though they are conflicting the constitutional article has control.

Summary
The Vice President is subject to a mid term consul vote, if appointed mid term.

Unless I’m misreading the Constitution (a distinct possibility), the Constitution does NOT say the Vice-President is an unelected position. Article D2 says the VP is the assistant to the President; will perform the President’s tasks when the President is absent; will be elevated to the Presidency if the President is removed from office; will then appoint a new Vice-President; and that new Vice-President must be approved by the consuls (if the new VP is appointed mid-term).

It seems to me the whole thrust of the latter part of article D2 speaks of Presidential and Vice-Presidential succession. I’m not actually seeing the section in the Constitution that says the VP isn’t an elected office at the beginning of a new term; just that if the VP is appointed by a President – who began the term as VP but then ascended to the Presidency – then that new VP’s appointment must be confirmed by the consuls.

As I think about this, I guess one could argue that the VP is a deputy in that he "assists" the President and thus is subject to appointment. However, no other deputy has an entire article in the Constitution devoted to his office, so I'm not sure this argument stands. And of course the VP's title isn't Deputy President, further suggesting that the VP isn't meant to be a "deputy" but rather an elected official. However, this is becoming a semantics discussion (dangerous ground) so I'll shut up. :crazyeye:

Unless I’m misreading the Constitution (a distinct possibility), the Constitution does NOT say the Vice-President is an unelected position. Article D2 says the VP is the assistant to the President; will perform the President’s tasks when the President is absent; will be elevated to the Presidency if the President is removed from office; will then appoint a new Vice-President; and that new Vice-President must be approved by the consuls (if the new VP is appointed mid-term).

It seems to me the whole thrust of the latter part of article D2 speaks of Presidential and Vice-Presidential succession. I’m not actually seeing the section in the Constitution that says the VP isn’t an elected office at the beginning of a new term; just that if the VP is appointed by a President – who began the term as VP but then ascended to the Presidency – then that new VP’s appointment must be confirmed by the consuls.

As I think about this, I guess one could argue that the VP is a deputy in that he "assists" the President and thus is subject to appointment. However, no other deputy has an entire article in the Constitution devoted to his office, so I'm not sure this argument stands. And of course the VP's title isn't Deputy President, further suggesting that the VP isn't meant to be a "deputy" but rather an elected official. However, this is becoming a semantics discussion (dangerous ground) so I'll shut up. :crazyeye:
however there is also nothing saying any of those positions are elected, so it is undefined. Howerver since it is undefined the code of laws is still used...

Is in the constitution.
This means even though they are conflicting the constitutional article has control.

Then...


however there is also nothing saying any of those positions are elected, so it is undefined. Howerver since it is undefined the code of laws is still used...


Go on admit it Black Hole: The VP position has been the single most contentious issue for your team and the whole thing needs to be re-written. It's a nothing job anyway. Despite the fact that Bertie is a drunkard and can't spell my name ;) I agree with him (again). The path of least resistance is just to remove all references to the VP from the CoL and the Constitution. Let him just be a deputy. In turn the CoC will not contain a reference to the position, and Bob's your uncle. Several Birds, one stone, Job done, down the pub, few beers, deep joy.

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may
take over the President's tasks when the President is
absent. If the President should be removed from office
for any reason the Vice President will then take the
position of President and appoint a Vice President.
The Vice President must be approved by a majority of
the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

This needs a little clarity, because the first time I saw it I thought it meant if the Vice President were to take over the presidency, he/she would need to have a consul vote.

Go on admit it Black Hole: The VP position has been the single most contentious issue for your team and the whole thing needs to be re-written. It's a nothing job anyway. Despite the fact that Bertie is a drunkard and can't spell my name ;) I agree with him (again). The path of least resistance is just to remove all references to the VP from the CoL and the Constitution. Let him just be a deputy. In turn the CoC will not contain a reference to the position, and Bob's your uncle. Several Birds, one stone, Job done, down the pub, few beers, deep joy.

It's not the judiciary's job to change the Constitution, that's up to citizens.

Then...



Go on admit it Black Hole: The VP position has been the single most contentious issue for your team and the whole thing needs to be re-written. It's a nothing job anyway. Despite the fact that Bertie is a drunkard and can't spell my name ;) I agree with him (again). The path of least resistance is just to remove all references to the VP from the CoL and the Constitution. Let him just be a deputy. In turn the CoC will not contain a reference to the position, and Bob's your uncle. Several Birds, one stone, Job done, down the pub, few beers, deep joy.
we are not here to change the constitution, the Judiciary cannot do that. Many peolple today think we can. All we are doing is interpereting. I am against consul votes, however I dont have the right to just rule against them because I dont like them. We are ruling on how constitution is, not how it should be, nor what we want it to be.

mad-bax and Bertie, you cannot beat the Judiciary, they will defend this VP position in the CoC until Armageddon, whatever the price. They will say "Don't fix it, it's not broken", they will ridicule, dig up things you did in the past and mess up your counter-proposal or inputs hundreds of times. It is like this scene from Matrix where hundreds of Agent Smiths show up to beat you to a pulp. Well, they also say amending the constitution is not worth it, and they got this steady group of loyal constitutionalists that will defend it to their death, and then again, we got Strider on the top of that, so legal discussions in this game have become unwanted, personal, territorial and frankly have no future at all.

Warned for trolling. Don't start this again. Eyrei.

For clarifaction read these 2 articles:
Article F. The Judiciary or Judicial Branch is tasked with upholding,
defending, and interpreting the laws of Fanatannia. The
Judiciary also upholds the rights of all citizens. The
Judiciary may create Judicial Procedures which define how
the Judiciary will operate. These procedures must be
approved by 2/3 of the justices. These procedures are lower
than the Constitution and Code of Laws, so they must be
within the boundaries of the constitution. The Chief
Justice, Judge Advocate, and Public defender make up the
Judiciary.

1. Chief Justice - Organizes and heads the affairs and
discussions of the court. May take place of other
Justices if there is no pro-term justice.

2. Judge Advocate - Prosecutes Citizen Complaints if the
Citizen Complaint is filed anonymously or the accuser
wishes to have the Judge Advocate prosecute. He/she
ensures CCs are following constitution, code of laws,
and court procedures guidelines.

3. Public Defender - Acts as Chief Attorney for the
accused, unless the accused wishes otherwise.
Ensures the accused understands his/her rights and the
accusation.

Article G. The Citizens make up the General Assembly. The General
Assembly is tasked with the creation of laws and leading
the elected officials. After a law is created or changed
by the citizenry, it is presented to the Judiciary to
ensure it is in the correct format and does not violate
the constitution.

mad-bax and Bertie, you cannot beat the Judiciary, they will defend this VP position in the CoC until Armageddon, whatever the price. They will say "Don't fix it, it's not broken", they will ridicule, dig up things you did in the past and mess up your counter-proposal or inputs hundreds of times. It is like this scene from Matrix where hundreds of Agent Smiths show up to beat you to a pulp. Well, they also say amending the constitution is not worth it, and they got this steady group of loyal constitutionalists that will defend it to their death, and then again, we got Strider on the top of that, so legal discussions in this game have become unwanted, personal, territorial and frankly have no future at all.
never have I said dont amend the constition, please read my above post. Now lets just say I could remove consul votes because I dont like them. Why dont I remove some other things? what is going to stop me?

Please speak aloud:
The Judiciary Cannot Change Laws, Only Interperet Them
Please repeat 10 times

See, there's that paranoia streak again, Provo. Really should have that looked at.

Surprise - I happen to agree that putting the VP in the Constitution was a mistake. No reason for it. I feared it would muddy things up a bit, and it has. Please, someone put together an amendment that would strike that clause and renumber all lower clauses.

As for the CoC - call it tradition, call it whatever - I don't see a reason to remove the VP from the CoC for game play purposes. Add a clause striking them for naming reasons to keep our resident naming fanatics happy, and I'll be fine with it.

-- Ravensfire

Warned for trolling. Eyrei.

I'm starting to lose patience here. If you guys (you know who you are) can't discuss things without resorting to insults and veiled accusations, don't participate in the discussions. I don't like to ban people, but if you can't learn to behave, I will do so. Eyrei.

Despite the fact that Bertie is a drunkard and can't spell my name ;) . . .

Mad-bax, I am incredibly chagrined: please accept my apology for misspelling your name. I don’t have time now, but later (probably tomorrow) I’ll try to make an appropriate penance in the thread where I made the mistake. ;)

After eyrei’s warning I almost hesitate to continue the discussion of the Vice-President’s position in the Constitution. Chief Justice Black Hole asked for citizen input on JR#4, and being a citizen – and having largely neglected all judiciary, political, and constitutional questions during my short residence in Fanatannia - I thought it my duty to respond to his plea. I understand the constitution has been a bone of contention among some, and certain citizens seem to have long-standing differences with each other. I’m not a party to any of that, and that’s not why I’m participating in this thread.

I don’t know whether the framers of our Constitution meant for the VP to be an elected or an appointed position. Now that I’ve finally read the entire Constitution – and not just bits and pieces that people have pulled out to support various positions – it’s clear that as it is written the Constitution puts the VP on the same legal and political footing as the President and the Consuls. Article C of the Constitution says there are 4 branches of Government: the Strategic, Tactical, Judicial, and General Assembly. Article D says the members of the Strategic Branch consist of the President, Vice President, and Consuls. Article H3 says “all strategic and tactical positions shall have a deputy.”

Because the Presidency is a strategic position, he should appoint a deputy; but because the Vice President is also a strategic position as defined by the Constitution, he too should appoint a deputy. The inference is that the President’s deputy will be a person separate from the Vice President. In fact under the Constitution it must be a separate person: Article H also stipulates that “no person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (Strategic, Tactical, Judiciary, or Deputy) simultaneously.” What is confusing is the purpose of a deputy is to assist the officeholder; but the purpose of the Vice President is also, in part, to assist an officeholder (the President) as Article D2 makes clear. However, as already discussed most of this article discusses circumstances under which the Vice President might become President.

What’s interesting both about the Constitution and the Code of Laws is that although both of them talk about polls and elections in several cases, neither one of them actually enumerates for which offices elections should be held. One might read the Constitution and conclude that someone – a moderator? – is to appoint the President, Vice President, Consuls, Judiciary, etc. This is a wrong reading, I believe, but it’s not illogical.

Regarding JR#4, it’s a moot case. The Vice President isn’t a deputy, so there is no conflict between the wording of the Constitution and the Code of Laws. A more interesting case might be why we’re currently appointing rather then electing the Vice President since the Constitution makes clear (well, as clear as anything is in the Constitution) that the Vice Presidency is a strategic office, and if the other strategic office holders are to be elected, so must the VP.

Or at least this is my opinion. Now that I've contributed to this thread yet again, I think I'll go hang myself. :lol:

I sincerely hope that the warning was not directed in our direction Bertie. I have 4000 posts to my name and run a competition on this site. I've never been banned. I'm trying to play in character, that's all. If people (including the moderators) don't get it, then too bad I guess. I'll be infamous. ;)

Dropping out of character just for the purposes of this post... there are a number of points I would make.

1. The Judiciary is charged with ensuring that any new laws and ammendments to the constitution are not contradictory. Yet they are unable to rectify contradictions retrospectively.

2. The VP position was appointed, though it is not clear whether that is in-line with the constition or CoL or not.

3. The only position in the CoC that was not elected was the VP.

4. If ammendments to the CoL or constitution cannot be prescribed by the Judiciary, and yet they know there are parts of the constitution that would never have been passed into law had they been ammendments, then the Judiciary are best placed to [i]propose[i] and ammendment.

In fact, the individual laws are not particularly important or interesting to me. Taking on a character and trying to construct arguments from that characters point of view does. It's really funny, and I laugh out loud at some of the things that are written, and how some people take umbrage. Some of the real life evangelical politicians and clergy must have a whale of a time making controversial arguments and then finding ways to misconstrue, distort and otherwise feign taking offence at their opponents comments.

I'll say it again, and again, and again, until it sinks in. I'm playing a game. I will never mean it personally, and I will never take it personally. It's just fun for me to construct an argument and see how people go about dismantling it.

Just to make it clear, the problem posts are ones like these:

mad-bax and Bertie, you cannot beat the Judiciary, they will defend this VP position in the CoC until Armageddon, whatever the price. They will say "Don't fix it, it's not broken", they will ridicule, dig up things you did in the past and mess up your counter-proposal or inputs hundreds of times. It is like this scene from Matrix where hundreds of Agent Smiths show up to beat you to a pulp. Well, they also say amending the constitution is not worth it, and they got this steady group of loyal constitutionalists that will defend it to their death, and then again, we got Strider on the top of that, so legal discussions in this game have become unwanted, personal, territorial and frankly have no future at all.

and

See, there's that paranoia streak again, Provo. Really should have that looked at.

I sincerely hope that the warning was not directed in our direction Bertie. I have 4000 posts to my name and run a competition on this site. I've never been banned. I'm trying to play in character, that's all. If people (including the moderators) don't get it, then too bad I guess. I'll be infamous. ;)

Dropping out of character just for the purposes of this post... there are a number of points I would make.

1. The Judiciary is charged with ensuring that any new laws and ammendments to the constitution are not contradictory. Yet they are unable to rectify contradictions retrospectively.

2. The VP position was appointed, though it is not clear whether that is in-line with the constition or CoL or not.

3. The only position in the CoC that was not elected was the VP.

4. If ammendments to the CoL or constitution cannot be prescribed by the Judiciary, and yet they know there are parts of the constitution that would never have been passed into law had they been ammendments, then the Judiciary are best placed to [i]propose[i] and ammendment.

In fact, the individual laws are not particularly important or interesting to me. Taking on a character and trying to construct arguments from that characters point of view does. It's really funny, and I laugh out loud at some of the things that are written, and how some people take umbrage. Some of the real life evangelical politicians and clergy must have a whale of a time making controversial arguments and then finding ways to misconstrue, distort and otherwise feign taking offence at their opponents comments.

I'll say it again, and again, and again, until it sinks in. I'm playing a game. I will never mean it personally, and I will never take it personally. It's just fun for me to construct an argument and see how people go about dismantling it.
just because a justice posts an amendment idea doesnt mean it will do better than any other citizen
If it were possible for us to fix "contradictions" what stops us from choosing which way to fix it? For example, there is a heavily fought issue of whether turnchats are online or off, somehow 2 contradicting parts get into the constitution. what you want is that the judiciary should pick which way it should go, bad idea

#3 has been talked about, but most people believe it to be a good idea

If you want to remove the VP part of article D, go ahead and start a discussion on it. Then post a proposed poll(not an actual poll) within the requirements of the constitution, and the judiciary will decide if it contradicts with any other laws, and in that case it wouldnt. then a poll will be posted by me and people vote on it

btw, would the PD and JA please give opinions on the out-standing judicial matters?

Here is who has ruled on the JRs

JR 4
CJ

JR 5 High Priority!!!
CJ
PD

JR 6
PD
CJ

JR 7
CJ

Links here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2624429&postcount=139

I would like to propose an amendment to the Constitution, Article D, Section 2. My proposed amendment would read (change is in bold):
2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. This is an elected office. He/she may take over the President's tasks when the President is absent. If the President should be removed from office for any reason the Vice President will then take the position of President and appoint a Vice President. The Vice President must be approved by a majority of the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

I would like to propose an amendment to the Constitution, Article D, Section 2. My proposed amendment would read (change is in bold):
Please start a discussion in the citizen forum first :)

I posted a legal discussion on trimming down the number of elected and non-elected offices in the CoC. Basically, that deleted the VP function altogether.

1. The Judiciary is charged with ensuring that any new laws and ammendments to the constitution are not contradictory. Yet they are unable to rectify contradictions retrospectively.


This might be a misconception. One of the two main purposes of the judiciary is to determine if there are conflicts between existing articles and laws, and if conflicts exist to rule over which has precedence. (the other main purpose being to handle citizen complaints alleging breaches of the law) The result of a Judicial Review does not change the text of the law itself, but it does form a lasting interpretation of the contradiction which can be used as precedent for future decisions.

Paging The Judge Advocate, wait we dont have pagers.
Throws a rock at the Judge Advocate:
Could you please rule on the JRs?

Paging The Judge Advocate, wait we dont have pagers.


But we do have ram horns. ;)

Have a look at the absence registry. ;)

Have a look at the absence registry. ;)
oh, umm well... :blush:

I'm willing to be replacement judge ;)

I'm willing to be replacement judge ;)
sorry, pro term justices arent defined in the CoL or Constitution. So it wouldnt be legal for you to rule on JRs

Yeah, um, oops... :mischief:

Sorry, gents, I got caught up with nonsense on the home front and had to turn away from the magic of the internet for a few days. But, have no fear, I'm back and ready to do some Judiciating. :hammer:

Since I put forth this JR in the first place, I felt it better to wait for as many opinions as possible before putting down my ruling. And, as one would assume, my decision will go along with what the majority of people seem to be saying.

Conclusion
In the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors that is our legal system, the Constitution cuts the CoL. Vice Presidents must be confirmed by a consul vote if they are appointed midterm.

Also, as others have suggested, I strongly urge citizens to propose amendments that will take care of some of the rough spots in our legal framework.

Well, it's not actually a JR, but I approve of the proposed legislation anyway.

I just realized I can tackle two JR's in the same post. I suppose I should also apologize for the quadruple-post, but I've got a bit of catching up to do.

In short, I approve of the proposed legislation in both JR#6 and #7.

I will get caught up tomorrow and post the poll... Sorry I have lots of math homework :(

My apologies for a long delay due to illness. I'm still not over it, so things will be much shorter.

Consolidated JR post #1!

JR#4

As the others have stated, the Constitution trumps the Code of Laws. Therefore, should the VP be a mid-term appointment, they must be confirmed by a council vote.

JR#7

I find that this proposed legislation does not conflict with any current laws.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Unfortunately, unless this poll:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=114978
Gets 2 votes in 15 minutes, then we have to redo the polling... We cannot move onto other legislation until we have some article allowing CoL changes.

I believe this should wait until next term, discussion can start soon, however I believe the JR should not be filed till next term...

edit: It was passed

Juristiction of JR#6 and #7 will be passed onto the Term 2 Court. I will have a judicial log entry for JR#5 soon.(Tomorrow, probably)

Chief Justice Black_Hole,

JR #5 was two seperate actions. Am I correct in determining that one part (the Constitutional Amendments) failed, and the second (CoL Amendments) passed? In either case, would you post a final comment in each detailing the ending vote code, the votes needed and the result of the poll?

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

Chief Justice Black_Hole,

JR #5 was two seperate actions. Am I correct in determining that one part (the Constitutional Amendments) failed, and the second (CoL Amendments) passed? In either case, would you post a final comment in each detailing the ending vote code, the votes needed and the result of the poll?

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

And if an amendment passes, please ask the mods to edit it into the constitution sticky thread. :)

are we following what is in the articles, to determine whether it passes? if so they both passed... The Constitution article needed 2/3 of the votes OR 60some percent of the census... I am very busy right now with school, work I will get around to it...

As these processes were missed when I sent the version to the mods, these are, by necessity, recursive sections. They define their own criteria as no current criteria exists.

-- Ravensfire

Has this judiciary closed down yet? I request it remain open for a few more days, until the new chief justice is unbanned (I think he was) and he can get his judicial machine running like clockwork.

By tradition, and by law, this Judiciary would only have jurisdiction until the term ends, at midnight the 31st, GMT. The same is true of any DG elected office.

This judiciary will have no juristiction after midnight the 31st...
So if provo doesnt get back before than, we will have to wait on filing the thousands of CCs ;)

I think the judiciary should behave themselves... ;)

he can get his judicial machine running like clockwork.

lol the clock will be starting a few days late.