TERM 2 JUDICIARY- THE CLOCKWORK ORANGE COURT

CHIEF JUSTICE PROVOLUTION
JUDGE ADVOCATE ASHBURNHAM
PUBLIC DEFENDER BLACK HOLE

nominated Pro Term Justice in case I want some help is MHCarver, being closer to me in terms of legal interpretation.

In line with the vacancy laws, my absence was notified by the "Eye in the Sky", and since my term started April 1, I was well within the one weeks notified absence.

JUDICIAL PROCEDURES (SAME AS LAST TERM)

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

NO ANONYMOUS CCs will be filed.

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.

Judicial Docket

DG6 JR#6
Filed by: Strider
Status: Merit Approved by Court
Regarding: Legislation to Change Election CoL

DG6 JR#7
Filed by: ravensfire
Status: Merit Approved by Court
Regarding: Chain of Command Legislation, in CoL

DG6 JR#8
Filed by: LeeT911
Status: Merit Approved by CJ
Regarding: Mandate for Declaration of War

DG6 JR#9
Filed by: mad-bax
Status: Merit Approved by CJ
Regarding:Separation of mandates and powers External Consul-Commander

DG6 JR#10

Pending Cases

Court Rulings

Request for Judicial Review by LeeT911


Declarations of war fall under the purview of which office?

Relevant articles from the Constitution:
Code:

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.

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

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.




As we can see, the External Consul is responsible for long term plans relating to "foreign affairs" as well as "policy regarding other nations". Do declarations of war consist of long term plans?

The Director of Commerce "decides on foreign affairs". Wars are most certainly foreign affairs.

And the Commander of the Armed Forces is included since he/she manages the military might of our nation as well as "military operations against foreign countries". I believe war fits that definition.

So, seeing as Fannatannia will most likely be at war soon, who is in charge of deciding when that time has come?

Chief Justice rules that Lee'T911s request for JR8 does have merit.
I will give my ruling as soon as the other Judges posted their merit approvasl.

Mr. Chief Justice, welcome back! I hope your stay at the CivFanatica Country Club was a cleansing and enlightening experience. :)

I believe the judicial procedures need to be agreed upon, even if the plan is to keep the procedures from the last term.

Judicial Procedures:

# Keep Spectrum voting on CC sentencing poll?

No, speculative, future CC rulings need a unified Court sentence. In real legal systems, we do not spectrum vote Juror rulings. Thus, we may rather repoll ties or unclear sentences.
Possibly I would go for simple absolute majority here.

# Stricter regulations on filing CCs?

CC's are a means for a citizen to complain about unfair treatment or a violation of rules by an official, and should not be regulated. In fact, I do not see a problem with using CCs as a means to settle an issue, and I will not chastise, mock or berate citizens filing in a complaint based on my personal preference, but will rather respect these regardless for their grounds to file a complaint. I am not going to split the people in an A and B team legally, but treat everyone in exactly the same manner.
I think we will see an improvement with this Court.

# "Merit" defined somewhat?

A Merit is defined when a law is not defining a mandate for issuing instructions in the instruction thread as well as posting official threads and polls influencing in-game decisions.

# Allow CCs to be filed anonymously?

No, the accuser must be known, so that the JA cannot disown his client or misrepresent his client, but let statements of the accuser and JA be observed as separate and individual statements. No one to hide behind.

# Create discussion threads for JRs?

Depends on the scope of the law, if it is a minor clarification it is not needed, but if there is a JR influencing major in-game decision mandates, a separate thread may be needed.

# Allow judiciary to declare a turn chat instruction illegal?

We got the CC mechanism to handle such violations, but these may be initiated by the Judiciary in a separate manner. I do not see the problem with a civic CC as long as we can avoid general mudthrowing other places. I really do not see the drama with CCs,, as the people has never shown resolve in meting out real punishments.

Chief Justice rules that Lee'T911s request for JR8 does have merit.
I will give my ruling as soon as the other Judges posted their merit approvasl.
according to last term judicial procedures, ashburnham and I do not need to rule on merit, unless we disagree with it. I also would prefer if we pass judicial procedures before the JRs get ruled upon

nominated Pro Term Justice in case I want some help is MHCarver
Thank you provo, I accept with honor

Chief Justice Provolution,

When may we expect to see the full judicial procedures that will allow all citizen to know exactly how this court will operate?

-- Ravensfire

Citizen Ravensfire

The Procedures from Term One are adopted and put up, I see no need to change these.

I approve of the Judicial Procedures

Welcome back provoluzo, they finally let you out the big house. *slips provo 50 grand as a coming out of jail present.* congratulations on your new job same goes for the rest of the court.

At least we know that the Cheif Justice will always here to help the citizens, because if he leaves the courthouse his leg braclet will go off.

Re JR8: Just for Info.

The external consulate has taken the view that the consulate is responsible for deciding who we should target for war, in what circumstances and what the aims of such hostilities should be. We have taken the view that the Commander of the Armed forces is responsible for the tactical battlefield plan. We have taken the view that the Director of commerce decides the exact date of any declaration and what resource allocation to divert to the effort.

The courts ruling on this is very important and I hope that, if it pleases your honour, that this is resolved before the next turnchat.

I have also requested a JR in the Temporary Judicial thread. This is also urgent your honour.

FWIW I am thinking of tabling a change to the constitution to clarify the demarcation between Strategic war plans and tactical war plans. The current wording is ambiguous IMO.

Honorable External Consul Mad Bax

I would prefer a citation of the exact Article to be reviewed and the reasoning you mentioned. I am aware that the Articles C-E are ambigious, and would actually prefer a fully fledged amendment proposal in place of interpreting this in all perpetuity.

Please review Court Procedures Mad Max, in that you find the citation of the Article in question to be needed for the formal part.

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.


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 request a JR to clarify the above sections of the constitution.

Does the Director of Commerce have a veto on all actions requested by other departments that require expenditure?

My specific example.

If I were to require a gift to a foreign civ of 10g + 1gpt in order to improve that civs attitude towards us, could the Commerce Director

A. refuse this request outright - and therefore prevent a gift being made.
B. Allocate a different sum, even though the amount requested is the minumum hardcoded value in the game that will give the maximum hardcoded improvement in attitude through gifting. In other words - a smaller gift would not acheive the same result, whilst a larger gift would be unnecessary.

From my reading, it appears that the commerce director can veto any expenditure related activity, but is not permitted to change the amount. He can only say yes or no.

Secondly, what is the difference between foreign affairs and long term foreign affairs?

Who decides on Embassies, ROP, embargoes, MA's etc? Do Embassies qualify as espionage missions?

Chief Justice find that External Consul Mad Bax request Judicial Review does have merit, and this will now be added to the docket.

Do you need the information from the temporary thread copied over, or is putting a link to the other thread post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2670997&postcount=16) enough?

Sorry, I should have done that myself.

I, too, approve the Judicial Procedures and look forward to ruling on some of these JR's.

DG6 JR#8
Filed by: LeeT911
Status: Merit Approved by CJ
Regarding: Mandate for Declaration of War

The Articles in question do not explicitly reference "Declaration of War" or "Negotiation of Peace Treaty" as such. Since the wording is unclear on which office is technically in charge of posting instructions on declarations of war, or peace agreements, we need to apply common sense. It is not written in the constitution that only Directors or Tactical leaders are excluisively authorized to post instructions, but to implement the tactical and operational level of these instructions. Since there has been a refusal in the drafting of the constitution to specify long term and short term by number of turns, days or by the nature of decision, and no definitions on what is deemed long term and short term, the Judiciary is now forced to make a decision on which office which can post Declaration of War or Negotiated Peace Treaties.

For the purposes of the presented articles that could conceivably dispute authority on the matter, the Chief Justice still see the need to maintain the integrity of each office, without diluting any of these, as well as balancing out powers for what is natural for each office.

As long term objectives of foreign policy constitute both Declarations of War, herein war objectives, rules for engagement and choice of conditions and timing based on integration with other offices, the Chief Justice will hereby grant constitutional authority on the matter to the External Consul.

A war begins to live its life on its own when it starts, and military alliances last a minimum 20 turns, which for many of us could represent half or so of an entire term.
However, the Commander of the Armed Forces is free to plan the implementation of the External Consul Long Term Policy based on the Declaration of War (I.e. ante bellum or after war has been initiatied, whereas the Commercial Director will represent the implementation of the Negotiated Peace Treaty post bellum
, which is after the war has ended and peace negotiations commenced.

However, with the External Consul in charge of the negotiation mandate of the directors (by the force of the Armed Forces Commander or by the economic and political means of the Commercial Director), the External Consul is free to instruct either party to seize specific war objectives, cities and tiles included or to achieve certain concessions in negotiations, eventually concede negotiated losses in a potentially lost war. However, the External Consuls strategic instructions overrides tactical interpretations, and the specificity of the External Consuls order should be followed to the letter as far as possible by said director. Failure to comply with strategic decisions backed by a popular mandate (discussed and polled), is subject to other conflict arbitration of the Judiciary.

Ruling: DG6 JR#8

The External Consul is bestowed the mandate to declare war on a nation, the mandate to negotiate alliances and peace treaties, as well as defining military and negotiation objectives within the framework of the national strategy, specified by External Consul.

Declaration of War and Negotiation of International Treaties are considered a national long term strategic interest, not an arbitrary decision of tactical nature.

DG6 JR#9
Filed by: mad-bax
Status: Merit Approved by CJ
Regarding:Separation of mandates and powers External Consul-Commander

Question 1.
Does the Director of Commerce have a veto on all actions requested by other departments that require expenditure?

Answer 1.
Yes, the Director of Commerce has a veto on all actions requested by other departments that require expenditure. However, as we should not totally hollow out the mandate of the Technology and Trade Consul, which has the responsibility for the long term budgetary planning, we may need a separate Judicial Review process to figure out what long term budgetary planning means.
For the Judiciary to look into what separates short term veto of financial requests from long term budgetary planning, we need someone to post the need for another Judicial Review, as the Judiciary can only answer specific questions in Judicial Reviews.
However, the Judiciary is free to point out what further reviews may be needed.
Until further notice, the Commercial Director may veto all financial requests, specifically, per value, and not alter the specifically designated value.

Question
Secondly, what is the difference between foreign affairs and long term foreign affairs?
Who decides on Embassies, ROP, embargoes, MA's etc? Do Embassies qualify as espionage missions?

Answer
Long term foreign affairs are Declarations of War, War Objectives, Razing/Abandonment of cities, Negotiated Peace Treaties, Establishment of Embassies, Rights of Passage Agreements, Embargoes and Military Alliances.

Foreign Affairs would be the practical implementation of stated policies, adding cities workers, gold and technology trades to the proposed agreement in order to reach an agreement. Embassies established do not count as espionage missions.

Ruling:
Presently the Commercial Director may veto all requests for funds.
Presently, the External Consul may propose [Declarations of War, War Objectives, Razing/Abandonment of cities, Negotiated Peace Treaties, Establishment of Embassies, Rights of Passage Agreements, Embargoes and Military Alliances.] [B]

Recommendation:
Post a request for a Judicial Review on long term budget vs. short term budgets, the citizens may also ask for further clarification of long term vs. short term foreign affairs.
We may also begin to consider amendment proposals on articles C-E.

After reviewing JR#6 and JR#7, I found no problems with them and will present them for a poll briefly, and thus make the part of the Code of Laws.

LeeT911's question
Declarations of war fall under the purview of which office?

Relevant articles from the Constitution

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.

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.

As the Constitution states, the External Consul determines "long-term planning of policy regarding other nations". Clearly, the decision of whether or not we should declare war on a country falls under the jurisdiction of the External Consul. However, when we should declare war is very different from when we actually declare it. That decision falls under the powers of the Director of Commerce. As the Constitution states, it is this office that "decides on foreign affairs".

Conclusion
While it is the External Consul who decides on the long-term policy of our nation, it is the Director of Commerce who is responsible with the actual declaration of war. The Consul may decide that we should declare war on nation X within the next 30 Turns, but it falls to the Director to make the declaration itself.

Public Defender Ruling on JR#8
What office do declarations of war fall under?

Articles:
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.

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.

Now war is a long term thing, thus External Consul would have some juristiction.
I concur with Judge Advocate Ashburnham, the External Consul would decide the need for war, but the Director of Commerce would post instructions at the best timing(maybe after an agreement ends for example) to declare war. Thus, the declaration of war falls under the Director of Commerce, even though the External Consul decides that war is nessecary

On another note, Mr. Chief Justice:
The question asked decisions on declarations of war, not other things including alliances and peace treaties. This JR should not be used for deciding who decides on peace treaties and alliances.

On the comment from Mr. Public Defender

Military Alliances are indeed de-facto declaratiations of war, a declaration of war done jointly with another nation, very unlike a future mutual protection pact. About negotiated peace treaties, these represent a state where the declaration of war ends, and has to be
included in the review for the purposes of Declaration of War, as the negotiated peace treaty is the counterpart of the declaration of war, effectively ending that state.

To both Mr. Public Defender and Mr. Judge Advocate

I urge you to revise the timing of Declaration of War with the Commercial Director for balance of power reasons and for workload reasons. The real timing will be a decision of the Designated Player, which is the true tactical layer in implementing of a Declaration of War. (Think practically, the turnplayer sees some military movements that forestalls or accelerates the exact timing of the Declaration of War. This could be the movement of an Indian Settler or a Persian Immortal that may change the exact timing during a turnchat. Outside that, the External Consul is perfectly capable of setting both the need for a war and the timing as well, and adding procedural twists and checkpoints along the way does not help the coordination effort. I would much prefer the External Consul to consult the Commercial Director on the timing of the War, and possibly let the Commander of the Armed Forces handle the way of doing so.
Finally, a more tidy division of powers would be very helpful, and I still wait in vain for the much anticipated amendment proposal for Articles C-E.

I hold a very strong belief, which is likely shared by most citizens, that the Judiciary should rule on the specific question at hand and not attempt to broaden the scope of a specific review. This is one of the reasons we started asking citizens to cite a specific law in their Judicial Review questions. ;)

Well, I am still within my bounds to answer on the military alliance and the peace treaty part, which came up anyways in JR9, as these are directly related to DoW.
This is also why I only ruled out the Declararation of War per se, but also including decisions that ends the Declaration of War (Peace negotiation) or complicates the Declaration of War (Military Alliance). However, JR9 covers this question more effectively.
Had the Articles C-E been more specific, we would not have had this discussion at all.

DG6 JR#8
Filed by: LeeT911
Status: Merit Approved by CJ
Regarding: Mandate for Declaration of War

LeeT911

Did you also mean Military Alliances (effectively a joint declaration of war) and Negotiated PEace Treaties (endind said declarations of war)? Some citizens and officials want me to interpret your question in the strictest possible manner, to Declaration of War in the most isolated form. If you only meant "Declaration of War", then the answer is External Consul, and the same applies to Military Alliances and Negotiated Peace Treaties when you expand on that question. However, mad-bax asked a more detailed and precise question which cover most of these questions.

On the comment from Mr. Public Defender

Military Alliances are indeed de-facto declaratiations of war, a declaration of war done jointly with another nation, very unlike a future mutual protection pact. About negotiated peace treaties, these represent a state where the declaration of war ends, and has to be
included in the review for the purposes of Declaration of War, as the negotiated peace treaty is the counterpart of the declaration of war, effectively ending that state.

To both Mr. Public Defender and Mr. Judge Advocate

I urge you to revise the timing of Declaration of War with the Commercial Director for balance of power reasons and for workload reasons. The real timing will be a decision of the Designated Player, which is the true tactical layer in implementing of a Declaration of War. (Think practically, the turnplayer sees some military movements that forestalls or accelerates the exact timing of the Declaration of War. This could be the movement of an Indian Settler or a Persian Immortal that may change the exact timing during a turnchat. Outside that, the External Consul is perfectly capable of setting both the need for a war and the timing as well, and adding procedural twists and checkpoints along the way does not help the coordination effort. I would much prefer the External Consul to consult the Commercial Director on the timing of the War, and possibly let the Commander of the Armed Forces handle the way of doing so.
Finally, a more tidy division of powers would be very helpful, and I still wait in vain for the much anticipated amendment proposal for Articles C-E.
I will not be ruling that way because it would make the departments more equal. The way I ruled is the way it is in the constitution, it is my belief we are here to interperet not fix.

I will not be ruling that way because it would make the departments more equal. The way I ruled is the way it is in the constitution, it is my belief we are here to interperet not fix.

Honorable Public Defender.

Indeed we are here to interpret, but also to clarify mandates in the process. We are allowed to use our brains, and understand a problem as a problem to be solved for posterity, not just put under the carpet for the next Judicial Review, and to camouflage inherent weaknesses of the Constitution.

In my opinion, Judicial Reviews are made to deepen the constitution where the text is too vague, ambigious and unprecise to make much sense.
As the complexity of running this nation soars, we will see thread upon thread of repeating different angles on the same issue, in place of unifying the issue under one umbrella. We are bound to get a thread overload here.
I can see a constitutional crisis deepening, and may possibly poll these interpretations against each other to clarify what interpretation the people really wants.

How do we strictly interpret this extreme vagueness, that is a different question? As it stands now, I do not see a good method of making numerous isolated Judicial Reviews on small clarifications piecemeal, on what should be essentially laid out in the very first Constitutional Articles in question.

The Articles are simply to weak and ambigious if it is not spelled out who declares war or negotiates peace, not to mention alliances and so on.

Honorable Public Defender.

Indeed we are here to interpret, but also to clarify mandates in the process. We are allowed to use our brains, and understand a problem as a problem to be solved for posterity, not just put under the carpet for the next Judicial Review, and to camouflage inherent weaknesses of the Constitution.

In my opinion, Judicial Reviews are made to deepen the constitution where the text is too vague, ambigious and unprecise to make much sense.
As the complexity of running this nation soars, we will see thread upon thread of repeating different angles on the same issue, in place of unifying the issue under one umbrella. We are bound to get a thread overload here.
I can see a constitutional crisis deepening, and may possibly poll these interpretations against each other to clarify what interpretation the people really wants.

How do we strictly interpret this extreme vagueness, that is a different question? As it stands now, I do not see a good method of making numerous isolated Judicial Reviews on small clarifications piecemeal, on what should be essentially laid out in the very first Constitutional Articles in question.

The Articles are simply to weak and ambigious if it is not spelled out who declares war or negotiates peace, not to mention alliances and so on.
that is mostly agreeable, however you decided on External Consul because:
I urge you to revise the timing of Declaration of War with the Commercial Director for balance of power reasons and for workload reasons.
Its my belief that the judiciary isnt here to fix the constitution, but to interperet it. The constitution pretty simply says the Commerce Director is incharge of short term foregin affairs

Honorable Magistrates,
I present the following proposed addition to the code of laws for Judicial Review. Should you review the discussion thread you will see much stated support for this addition to fill an oversight in the original law. This has now been posted as a mock poll for the required 24 hours.

Do you approve of the following addition to the Code Of Laws:

Yes/No/Abstain

Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=115794)

Addition of Section A. 1. a. 3 and A. 1. a. 4 to the Code of Laws as follows:

New Proposed Subsection Section (additions in blue:
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.
3. Captured Cities - cities of great renown
When a city containing an original AI capitol or a Great
Wonder is captured it will not be renamed.
4. Captured Cities - cities of no great renown
Will be renamed based on the date of capture using
the city naming list.

My original question was worded only to cover the declaration of war itself, but I would like the Judiciary to rule on peace negotiations and military alliances as well. The three are closely tied together.

Honorable Culture Consul MOTH

This law is not in conflict with any of the Fanatannian Laws. It has merit, and should be expediently processed in a poll.

Honorable Citizen LeeT911

Thank you for claryifying and deepening that question and the question is already answered to for the same reasona you posted. I expect the other Judicary members to amend their statements shortly.

Citizen LeeT911, please add that requested elaboration into the main JR request for book-keeping purposes with an Edit Label.

I find Moth's Proposed CoL changes are valid and should move onto the polling process.

Addendum to JR#8
Military Alliances and Peace Treaties are also to be declared by the commerce director. However long term goals, such as aquiring peace or an alliance shall be within juristiction of the External Consul. Basically the same thing as the declaration of war.

PD Blackhole

Did you mean Addendum or Amendment?

Mad-box's question
1. Does the Director of Commerce have a veto on all actions requested by other departments that require expenditure?
2. What is the difference between foreign affairs and long term foreign affairs?

Relevant Articles
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.


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.


To start, no office has vetoing power. The people should be the source of all decisions made in the Demogame. Having said that, yes the Director of Commerce has the last say in all monetary and financial considerations. It is the Director who actually initiates the plans put forth by other departments. So, while the Director does not in fact have a "veto", it is his responsibility to post the final directions for the budget before every turnchat. While all budgetary actions go through the Director of Commerce, the Director has no ability to veto those actions.

When looking at the difference between short-term and long-term planning, it is important to remember that one is an offshoot of the other. There can be no short-term plans without long-term plans. In many ways, this JR is an expansion of JR#8. As such, my answer is the same: the External Consul sets the long-term goals of the nation (declare war on X, trade for Y, etc.) and it falls to the Director of Commerce to implement those plans.

Conclusion
No, the Director of Commerce does not have a veto on any actions. No more than any other department has a veto. It is the job of the Director to manage the budget in response to the needs of the other departments.

Long-term foreign affairs deal with the "big" issues: war, peace, etc. The External Consul deals with long-term planning for the nation, but leaves the details to the Director of Commerce.

My original post in the temporary thread has been updated. I thank the Judiciary for their prompt response.

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.

I ask for a JR to clarify the position of the judiciary on the matter of interpreting the Constitution. Is it to just interpret the Constitution and CoL "as is" or to change the meaning of the law via interpretation (ie fix)?

I ask for a JR to clarify the position of the judiciary on the matter of interpreting the Constitution. Is it to just interpret the Constitution and CoL "as is" or to change the meaning of the law via interpretation (ie fix)?

The Chief Justice deems this question to have No Merit, as the Constitution states that the clearly defined written laws should only be interpreted. However, we may in the case of Articles C-E, point out that an amendment proposal is needed.
For the time being we have only interpreted the law, but also provided the reasoning behind the interpretation. For example, with the Declaration of War, we needed to include Miltiary Alliances and Negotiation of Peace to create parallel interpretation of parallel functions in the same in-game situation, initiating and ending Declaration of Wars with various diplomatic means.

Frankly put, Articles C-E need an amendment proposal, a view generally supported by a significant number of the population.

In effect, we call for the citizens to present an amendment proposal, which is the Legislatures job, not the Judiciary's job. We are not going to "fix" the defunct Articles C-E, but let the citizens handle it. However, as loyal subjects of Fanatannia, the Judiciary is still obliged to present the honest view on what is good for the nation.

However, we may in the case of Articles C-E, which are not even ratified yet (yes these are not yet ratified by the needed majority), point out that an amendment proposal is needed.

The term 1 Judiciary ruled that these were ratified. You cannot undo that ruling.

DS

I deleted the unratified part, but this ratification was still contested, and many still continuously reconsider these articles. That is correct, that ruling cannot be undone, yet, the process leading up to that ratification is still contested. Again, that is not the Judiciary's job, but the Citizens, if they can stomach the "impossible" job to get it through, which I am certain they will see if they try to come up with something.

Honorable Court,
I would just like to point out that the current Judicial procedures indicate that any polls on changes to the Constitution or Code of Laws will be posted by a member of the Judiciary. I understand that one member has not yet ruled on whether my proposal conflicts with existing law, but I just wanted to make sure that this was not sitting in my court. I would like to see this get polled before we get into our first war if possible.

Thanks

Consul MOTH

I need to wait for my revered brother Justice Ashburnham for us to poll it. Since he is the last to go through the naming legislation, he should poll the law.

Yes, I find that MOTH's proposal can go through to the polling stage. The poll will be up in a few minutes.

I was wondering how many votes my CoL changes needed and I went looking for the census. Did I just miss it or is this an oversight?

Public Defender Ruling on JR#9
1. The Director of Commerce approves cash uses from other tactical leaders. Consuls should not be asking for cash, this is up to the tactical directors.
2. Long term foreign affairs, is something long term. Basically general planning, such as we need to fight a war with the babylons. The Commerce Director would then decide when it is the best time to fight a war, the commander of armed forces would figure out how to go about the war.

Members of the Judiciary, I wish to file a Citizen’s Complaint on DaveShack on the terms that he failed to post a turnchat instruction thread in a timely manner. I have here, in this document, the time and date of the time of the posting of the turnchat instruction threads along with a schedule of each turnchat.

Turnchats of Term 1:
Chat 7: Saturday March 26, 6:00 PM EST
TCIT Posted: Friday March 25, 01:49 AM EDT

Turnchats of term 2:
Chat 1: Sunday April 3, 07:00 pm EDT
TCIT Posted: Saturday Apr, 06:07 PM EDT

Chat 3: Sunday April 10, 07:00pm EDT
TCIT Posted: Saturday Apr 10, 2005, 03:06 AM EDT

The lateness of the postings of the TCIT clearly violates Article J, Paragraph #1 which states, “An instruction thread must be created at least 3 days before the scheduled turnchat.” (Demogame Constitution). The examples I have shown have the TCITs posted within 2 days of the turnchat, often times on the day of the turnchat.


Article J.
1. An instruction thread must be created at least 3 days
before the scheduled turnchat.


Sources:
Turnchat Info (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112540)
TCIT for 4/10/05 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2688530#post2688530)
TCIT for 4/2/2005 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=115901)
Demogame Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113684)

Sincerely,
Concerned Citizen
CivGeneral

edit: nvm this

I, as a Judicial Member, find that CC#1 Filed by Citizen CivGeneral against President DaveShack to have merit.

While making no statement on the pending case itself, I will point out that a simple "by the way did you know" would have sufficed :blush: , and note that the current and next TCITs are up. An interesting experiment would be to post all the TCITs for the rest of the term and see what happens. :mischief:

While making no statement on the pending case itself, I will point out that a simple "by the way did you know" would have sufficed :blush: , and note that the current and next TCITs are up. An interesting experiment would be to post all the TCITs for the rest of the term and see what happens. :mischief:
I completely understand, however for a CC to have merit, you had to break a law which you did. It will then be left up to the citizenry to decide how important this law breaking was...

And there is no law stopping you from trying that idea :lol:

The CC1 has merit, but I asked Civgeneral to confirm it .

Why don't you just ask Daveshack not to do it again instead of wasting time on a CC over something so trivial?

But CC's are funny (no offense mr president)

The CC1 has merit, but I asked Civgeneral to confirm it .
I confurm it, sorry it took long since Comcast was not cooperating. I do hope that it does not drag on, but would just result in a warning.

PS: I was not sure how to reply on confurming (PM or post here?) :blush:.

Request for emergency JR.

Who is responsible for deciding if and when to make a peace deal? I cannot quote a part of the constitution because it doesn't exist as far as I can see.

We need to discuss and Poll whether or not to take peace before the next turnchat. Which officer must lead this discussion and post any subsequent polls?

Amicus brief on Mad-bax's JR request:

Article E, section 2 says this:

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.


A peace treaty involves both foreign affairs and trading. It is also my opinion that the previous JR ruling that the Commerce Director is responsible for declarations of war implies peace treaties as well. :D

While I agree with the majority that this is a fairly trivial violation of the law, it's a violation nonetheless. Civgeneral raises a perfectly valid point. I look forward to a swift,decisive resolution to the case.

I have not heard any confirmation or cancellation on the Citizen Complaint, and will now ask the Judge Advocate to put up a Citizens Complaint Thread, and collect needed evidence and material appropriate to the case. I will put up the sentencing poll when that situation is over. CC1 DG6 is now in session. Judge Advocate Ashburnmham opens the proceedings as required by the law.

About the Judicial Review. the External Consul is the one calling for a peace deal, but the Commercial Director may impact the timing of it. Yet, I deem a peace deal a long term issue, but we let the Commercial Director negotiate the terms of the peace deal.
External consul Mad Bax, please go ahead and poll the peace deal, and later on we let Commercial Director Octavian negotiate the details of the deal.

I am still seeing the problem with having to many fingers in the same pie, but I see all attempts to reform Articles C-E are shot down for some odd psychological/cultural reason I have no clue about. (Please enlighten me on the cultural aspects).

I find Max Bax's JR to have no merit.
After the last JR, we added an amendment including peace treaties. No need to file another JR. That said that the commerce director decides when to get peace, while the External Consul finds need for peace.

I request a JR over the issue of changing the constitution.

Does changing the entire constitution require the same prerequisites, as amending it does? Or, the only other possible option, does it just require a simple majority?

Please note that if this JR is not handled within reasonable time, action will be taken.

I have not heard any confirmation or cancellation on the Citizen Complaint.

I confurm it, sorry it took long since Comcast was not cooperating. I do hope that it does not drag on, but would just result in a warning.

PS: I was not sure how to reply on confurming (PM or post here?) :blush:.

Incase you have bypassed my post, I did confurmed it :p.

The Investigation Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116736) is up. The Public Defender and the accused now have 24 hours to post their replies. After that, discussion is open to the rest of the citizenry.

Guys I want yet another JR please.

The External Consulate set clear aims for the war with India which have now been met. Apparently we now have to wait for the commerce director to decide when to stop the war. In effect then the commerce director is responsible for the aims of the war and not the External Consulate. The commerce director decides when the war starts, and when the war finishes. The COA decides what happens in between. What point is there then in the External Consulate setting war aims? In fact isn't it true to say that the most specific instruction that the External Consulate can give is "We must declare war on India at some point during the game unless the Commerce Director doesn't want to" ??

This is a red flag for me. Apparently I have no job.

Guys I want yet another JR please.

The External Consulate set clear aims for the war with India which have now been met. Apparently we now have to wait for the commerce director to decide when to stop the war. In effect then the commerce director is responsible for the aims of the war and not the External Consulate. The commerce director decides when the war starts, and when the war finishes. The COA decides what happens in between. What point is there then in the External Consulate setting war aims? In fact isn't it true to say that the most specific instruction that the External Consulate can give is "We must declare war on India at some point during the game unless the Commerce Director doesn't want to" ??

This is a red flag for me. Apparently I have no job.

I don't mean to interfere with the Judicary but this question raises a red flag for me.

Is there a specific action / inaction which is prompting this, or just a need for clarification? Here is a sample war timeline, for reference by all parties. Y'all may agree or disagree, but this is the intent.


The External Consul continuously evaluates threats and opportunities. Out of citizen input on this threat and opportunity discussion comes a high level objective which indicates war with civ x, possibly in an alliance with civ y, or maybe not. Also included in this high level objective are the conditions under which it must be met. This seems to be working well.
The Commander forumlates a military plan to meet the objective. This plan includes conditions like we need 10 vet swords.
Commerce evaluates the other aspects of the war (trade opportunities, cost of the war, budget settings.
Commerce declares war when the conditions meet minimum requirements.
Commander prosecutes the war.
Commerce determines conditions for peace, which must fall within External's objectives. Commerce negotiates what we get in the peace deal.


Commerce does the actual instruction for war or peace, and the payment negotiations, but External sets objectives which the other departments must meet.

Mad Bax and DS, as you can read from my JR, I said exactly what you wanted and meant, External Consul decides on the time and target for the war and peace decisions.
Yet the Commercial Director should handle the commercial aspects of it, payments, adaptations of slider, war repairs an so on. External consul may override Commercial Director in a long term plan. However, if the External Consult leaves out critical details, the Commercial Director should handle this.

However, JA and PD got majority on the issue, and until they alter their interpretation, we are stuck with what you consider a problem.

The result of JR9.1 was that:

The Commerce Director decides when war begins.
The Commerce Director decides when war ends.
The COA decides how the war is fought.

The Result of JR9.2 was that strategic offices cannot make any decision that results in the spending of gold. In other words, I cannot build embassies, I cannot sign MA's, I cannot make gifts.

A link to the ruling is posted at the bottom of this post.

It is plain that as a result of JR9 strategic offices have no job. I cannot continue in a position that is clearly a farce and therefore tender my resignation as External Consul. I do not take this decision lightly, particularly since I was hoping to be a governor at some point in the game, and my behaviour will prevent that happening now.

I will continue as a citizen, and there are no hard-feelings on my side about any of this. There should be no recriminations of any kind against anyone. I'm not mad, just sad. :(

I am sure that my deputy (Bertie) has no desire to hold an official position. I believe therefore that a mid-term election is required.


JR9 Ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2686886&postcount=51)

Strider, you need to cite the article you want to be reviewed.
Thanks for the threat by the way.

I cannot continue in a position that is clearly a farce and therefore tender my resignation as External Consul.

I am sure that my deputy (Bertie) has no desire to hold an official position. I believe therefore that a mid-term election is required.

Well, I saw m-b's resignation post in the External Consul's thread, and I started writing this post in response:

You Scoundrel!

How DARE you resign and leave Bertie in charge of the External Consul’s ward of the asylum? I won't do it. I won't!

Then I thought I should probably actually take a look at m-b's reasons for leaving, so here I am.

Although I'm quite sorry to see the most effective Consul in the government resign his office, I understand and applaud his reasons. I hope he reconsiders, but certainly would understand if he wouldn't.

M-B is quite right: I take no particular pleasure in being in office and don't wish to be External Consul. Therefore the President should take the necessary steps to fill this office.

BTW, I understand that in the forthcoming Civ 4 they’ll be adding a new level of playing difficulty. It's to be called Realms Beyond Sid: DemoGame. :p

Quoting from the Constitution:

Article E. The Tactical Branch consists of the the officials in charge
of micromanagement of the game, within the boundaries of
the Strategic Branch's policy. The Tactical Branch consists
of the officials below.


Request for Judicial Review

The quoted section does not appear to place any limitations on what a Strategic Branch policy may contain.

Question: Does this not then imply that the details of any policy by the External Consul which touches upon the areas under that office are binding upon any Tactical Branch official, who is required to follow the Strategic Branch policy in general?

Commentary
The distinction to be made between this JR and the previous JR #9 is that the previous JR focused on who has the power to post the instruction and for the content of the instruction but not on the boundaries which are placed around the instruction. It is my contention that any tactical branch officer must stay within the bounds created by the strategic branch policy.

I will hold the External Consul appointment to allow a ruling on this new request, and if a favorable result is obtained would be inclined to ask Mad-bax to resume his duties. :)

Strider, you need to cite the article you want to be reviewed.
Thanks for the threat by the way.

There is *no* article. :rolleyes:

There is *no* article. :rolleyes:

May I suggest this Judicial Log entry (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2659373&postcount=6) as a reference?

Note to Judiciary and Mods: When amendments pass, they need to be updated into the Constitution thread so future references to them are clear. :hammer:

Honorable Chief Justice, has this court produced any rulings? The last entry I was able to find in the Judicial Log thread was from last term. :rolleyes:

I will update the Judicial Log now that the dust settles. I have waited on purpose in order
for this development to fall out in a way worth updating.

Please review the following proposed amendment to the Constitution and post the official poll once it has passed review.

[------------- amendment text ------------------------]
Do you approve of the attached legislation amending Article D and Article E, and the provisions for its activation?

Yes
No
Abstain
This poll is public and will be open for n days. (not sure how many n should be, the Judiciary should fill it in.)

Old text. Sections unaffected are indicated by ellipses (. . .)


Article D. 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
Fanatannia will operate.

. . . section 1-2 unaffected

3. Consul for Domestic Policy - Oversees long term
settlement, long term worker plans, and long term city
development objectives. Plans government switches.

. . . remainder of Article D unaffected

Article E. The Tactical Branch consists of the the officials in charge
of micromanagement of the game, within the boundaries of
the Strategic Branch's policy. The Tactical Branch consists
of the officials below.

. . . section 1-3 unaffected

4. Director of Expansion - Decides on where to settle with
settlers. The Director of Expansion also oversees the
creation of provincal boundaries. Controls movement of
settlers and settler carrying transports.

. . . remainder of Article E unaffected



New text

Article D. 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
Fanatannia will operate.

. . . Sections 1-2 unaffected

3. Consul for Domestic Policy - Oversees long term
settlement, long term worker plans, and long term city
development objectives. Plans government switches.
Decides on where to settle with
settlers. Oversees the
creation of provincal boundaries. Controls movement of
settlers and settler carrying transports.


. . . Remainder of article D unaffected

Article E. The Tactical Branch consists of the the officials in charge
of micromanagement of the game, within the boundaries of
the Strategic Branch's policy. The Tactical Branch consists
of the officials below.

. . . Sections 1-3 unaffected
Section 4 deleted, section 5 renumbered to 4

4. Governors - Each Governor shall determine any policies
and procedures needed to carry out their duties.
Governors are responsible for the care, management,
use of the cities, and use of lands of a province
through the setting of build queues, allocation of
laborers on tiles, population rushes and drafting of
citizen soldiers.



This amendment will take effect the beginning of the term after its ratification, and shall be implemented in the election cycle of said term by removing the office of Director of Expansion from the nomination and election process for that term. The Director of Expansion in office for the term when this amendment is ratified shall continue in office for the remainder of the term.

[---------------- end of text ----------------------]

DS, did you consider War Economy, Mobilization, Drafts and Settler escorts ?

DS, did you consider War Economy, Mobilization, Drafts and Settler escorts ?

I had considered these items to be the subject of another change. The current proposed change is specifically for reducing positions by elimination of the Director of Expansion position.

DS
This has merit on the condition it counts from the time it is ratified, which is this term or next term, whichever is closest.

DS
This has merit on the condition it counts from the time it is ratified, which is this term or next term, whichever is closest.

Meaning the current occupant of the office is removed immediately upon ratification? I was planning to include the ratification clause on all the amendments to avoid the impression that it's possible to get rid of somebody by passing an amendment taking away their seat at the table, but if you're saying it's not valid to do that then guess we have to live with the potential consequences. ;)

I mean, we will not empty the offices, elections always overrides laws.
However, when the law is enacted, the law takes effect the minute it is passed.

I mean, we will not empty the offices, elections always overrides laws.
However, when the law is enacted, the law takes effect the minute it is passed.
Elections dont override laws, which is why a clause is needed.

Then we should close the office the minute it is passed.

its not that hard just have the thing come into effect when we elect a new goverment.

The way the proposal is written, if it is ratified during term 2 then there is no election for that office in term 3. If ratification were delayed until term 3, then the office would remain until term 4.

If you want it to take effect immediately then the office should cease to exist upon ratification.

It is up to the judiciary to determine whether the proposal as written, with the change taking effect the beginning of the term after it is ratified, as valid under the existing laws. If the ruling is that it has to be immediate, then just strike the language from the poll and replace it with "When this amendment is ratified, the Director of Expansion office will cease to exist".

No muss, no fuss -- just need an OK from the bench one way or the other, and a poll posted. :)

Then we should close the office the minute it is passed.
no, do you care to read my posts?
i said that is why we need a clause... if there is a clause in the context, then it wont take effect until that clause says so...

We need no clause, when the law is passed, we close the damn office, we have seen enough delays. The reason we close the office, is that it is already obsolete.

this would cause massive confusion provo, plus we cant just close someones office. this alone would lose votes for it. if we reshuffle everything we cant expect leaders to suddenly change everything.
either:
a. a clause is included(like "These amendments takes effect beginning at Term 3 Elections")

this would cause massive confusion provo, plus we cant just close someones office. this alone would lose votes for it. if we reshuffle everything we cant expect leaders to suddenly change everything.
either:
a. a clause is included(like "These amendments takes effect beginning at Term 3 Elections")

Whatever happened to being unbiased? :rolleyes:

We need no clause, when the law is passed, we close the damn office, we have seen enough delays. The reason we close the office, is that it is already obsolete.

This would be a bad precedence. Imagine if Strider's gov't swap passes in one change. Many people would be out of jobs and we would have to hold immediate elections to fill appropriate offices since there is no one to one relationship with existing offices.

Also, what if legislation called for the creation of a new office while eliminating 2 old ones? Who would run the new one? Ex: legislation that merges Expansion and Infrastructure into one brand new office.

Dave's clause at the end of the proposed legislation allows for an orderly change over to the new situation.

Someone care to explain to me why this discussion about a few sentences can't be civil? Please don't make me start banning people...

There is a minor change to the JR request for amendments to articles D and E. Since the official JR process does not seem to be complete, please review the new text.

Note: The comment in the discussion thread included drafting as an additional item. This has not been done for the current request because there was some disagreement on which office should handle it.

On to the modified proposal.

Do you approve of the attached legislation amending Article D and Article E, and the provisions for its activation?

Yes
No
Abstain
This poll is public and will be open for n days. (not sure how many n should be, the Judiciary should fill it in.)

Old text. Sections unaffected are indicated by ellipses (. . .)


Article D. 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
Fanatannia will operate.

. . . section 1-2 unaffected

3. Consul for Domestic Policy - Oversees long term
settlement, long term worker plans, and long term city
development objectives. Plans government switches.

. . . remainder of Article D unaffected

Article E. The Tactical Branch consists of the the officials in charge
of micromanagement of the game, within the boundaries of
the Strategic Branch's policy. The Tactical Branch consists
of the officials below.

. . . section 1-3 unaffected

4. Director of Expansion - Decides on where to settle with
settlers. The Director of Expansion also oversees the
creation of provincal boundaries. Controls movement of
settlers and settler carrying transports.

. . . remainder of Article E unaffected



New text, article E

Article D. 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
Fanatannia will operate.

. . . Sections 1-2 unaffected

3. Consul for Domestic Policy - Oversees long term
settlement, long term worker plans, and long term city
development objectives. Plans government switches.
Decides on where to settle with
settlers. Oversees the
creation of provincal boundaries. Controls movement of
settlers, escorts, and settler carrying transports.
Plans switching the economy between normal and mobilized.


. . . Remainder of article D unaffected

Article E. The Tactical Branch consists of the the officials in charge
of micromanagement of the game, within the boundaries of
the Strategic Branch's policy. The Tactical Branch consists
of the officials below.

. . . Sections 1-3 unaffected
Section 4 deleted, section 5 renumbered to 4

4. Governors - Each Governor shall determine any policies
and procedures needed to carry out their duties.
Governors are responsible for the care, management,
use of the cities, and use of lands of a province
through the setting of build queues, allocation of
laborers on tiles, population rushes and drafting of
citizen soldiers.



This amendment will take effect the beginning of the term after its ratification, and shall be implemented in the election cycle of said term by removing the office of Director of Expansion from the nomination and election process for that term. The Director of Expansion in office for the term when this amendment is ratified shall continue in office for the remainder of the term.

=================================================

The Judiciary is requested to review this law and its activation procedure in light of the existing provisions of the Constitution. In particular, resolving the recent discussion on whether the office disappears immediately upon ratification would hinge on correctly interpreting Article H, Section 1

1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one
month.


If the Judiciary rules in a manner which indicates the activation of amendments of this type must occur the way the activation clause specifies it, then the question in the official poll should be modified to say

Do you approve of the attached legislation amending Article D and Article E?

Good , I accept the clause then, let us go ahead. I needed to stall this to let DS get the time to shape up War Economy and the other one.

I find the changes to articles d - e are legal and may move ahead to polling.

We just need to make sure it is done before the 23. I would also like to see the other 4-5 amendments shape up the situation.

I submit the following amendment(s) to the constitution for review by the Judiciary:

We, the people of $COUNTRY_NAME, 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. Citizen Rights
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 seek to redress grievances, and the right to vote.

Section 1. Rights Reserved to the People
Rights reserved to the people As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to be within the right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this Constitution may be substituted by other similar actions, provided such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules.

Section 2. Slate Polling and Political Parties
Slate Polling, or the agreement among certain citizens to vote for a single candidate is illegal and against the Sprit of the game. As such, political parties are also illegal and against the Sprit of the game.

Article B. Laws and Rules
Governing laws and rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution, the Code of Laws, and any administrative rules that a governmental official shall propose and are accepted by the people. No law or rule shall be valid which is in contravention of this Constitution, excepting an amendment specifically tasked to do so. The Constitution may be amended by vote of the citizenry.

Section 1. Amending the Constitution
There shall be two ways in which to amend the constitution. The first shall require a 2/3's majority of Yes votes over No votes, if less then half of the census votes in the poll at the date of the polls opening. If quroum is reached it takes a simple majority of Yes over No votes. The poll must run for 4 days. Amendment to the constitution must be given to the Judiciary for confirmation, who will then post the amendment poll.

Article C. Basic Government
The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch. These Branches are tasked with the play of the save, creation of laws, and upholding of laws, respectively.

Article D. The Executive Branch
The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implementing the will of the People, and is headed by the President. The President is charged with organizing and monitoring the affairs of the Ministers, and is also the primary designated player. The President shall take direction from a council of leaders and from other elected and appointed officials via the turnchat instruction thread, including worker actions. The President is also charged with appointing citizens to uncontested elections, the election office, the Naming Commission, and the Newbies Society.

Section 1. Domestic Affairs
The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be responsible for all domestic initiatives, including revolts and slider management, and the management of the national budget.

Section 2. Foreign Affairs
he Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible for matters involving treaties with foreign nations as well as all espionage and embassy missions.

Section 3. Defensive Affairs
The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all military strategy, troop activities, and unit upgrades.

Section 4. Trade
The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for negotiating trades both domestic and foreign, and monitored rival civs trade status.

Section 5. Research and Technology
The Minister of Science shall be responsible for all tech acquisition, foreign and domestic, and the construction of space ship parts.

Section 6. Cultural Affairs
The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the construction of wonders, the analysis and maintenance of cultural borders, as well as the movement and actions of settlers. This official shall also be responsible for monitoring Japanatica's cultural level against that of all rival nations. The Minister of Culture is also charged with the responsibility of the formation of new provinces.

Article E. Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch shall be formed of the House of the People and Governors of [Insert Nation Name Here].

Section 1. The House of the People
The House of the People will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws and Amendments to the Constitution. The House will present all proposed Articles, Amendments and Laws to the Judicial Branch for review. The House of the People is also responsible for observing the Executive and Judicial branches of government.

Section 2. The Governors
Governors are responsible for the care, management, use of the cities, and use of lands of there province through the setting of build queues, allocation of laborers on tiles, and population rushes.

Section 3. Mayors
Mayors are appointed by a governor and tasked with the ability to monitor and advise governors for the care, management, and use of there city. They are limited to the power the governor gives them.

Article F. The Judicial Branch
The Judicial Branch will consist of the Chief Justice, the Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility of organizing and conducting the affairs of the Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as counsel for an accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution. The Judicial Branch shall have the additional responsibility of monitoring and upkeeping the census. The census shall be defined as the average number of votes cast, dropping fractions, in each of the contested elections in the most recent general election, and is used for amending the constitution.

Section 1. Judicial Procedures
The elected Judiciary shall create their procedures once elected it, to be located in the first post of that term's Judiciary thread. Any change after the Judiciary's posting of these procedures will require the Will of the People.

Article G. Elections, the Election Office, and Deputies
The Elections determine the elected officials of [insert country name here]. Elected Officials shall have a fixed term of one month, starting from the first of the month. All elected officials must act according to the Will of the People, as mentioned below in Article J.

Section 1. Elections
All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month. Each position will be granted to the candidate receiving the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more candidates with the most votes, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie. Nominations shall begin roughly 8 days before the end of the month, with debates following exactly 2 days after that, and elections 2 days after debates. Nominations will be closed once the elections begin, however debates will continue.

Section 2. The Election Office
The Election Office shall be comprised of those citizens willing to assist the election process. These citizens are appointed by the President, and are subject to a confirmation poll. The Election Office shall determine before each election who will post the threads for that election. The Election Office shall maintain on the initial post of their thread the dates for the current and next election cycle. The Election Office shall solicit and maintain a common list of debate questions for each office. This list shall be posted as soon as possible in each debate thread. Any non-trivial differences in the dates/times threads are posted from the scheduled time should be noted by the Election Office official posting the thread.

Section 3. Pre-Nominations
Any citizen may submit a Pre-Nomination to a member of the Election Office one week before the start of the election process (Nominations, Debates, and Elections).

Section 4. Deputies
All Executive and Legislative positions shall have a deputy. The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the affairs of the office as directed, or during a planned Absence of the elected official. If no instructions have been posted for an office within 24 hours of the upcoming Turn Chat, the deputy for that office may post the official instructions for the office. The Judiciary does not use deputies. In the event of an Absence, a pro-tem justice(s) may be appointed by the Chief Justice (or Judge Advocate if the Chief Justice if absent) and confirmed by the President and the remaining justice if not also absent. If both the Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate are absent, the Public Defender may appoint pro-tems to the other seats, with Presidential approval. A deputy is chosen by the elected official.

Section 5. Appointments
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.

Article H. Multiple Poistions
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President, Vice-President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously. The Election Office, the Naming Commission, and similiar offices do not count. However, a citizen may have up to 2 accepted nominations by the start of elections.

Article I. The Will of the People
Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people. The will of the people must be determined through discussion and polls. The Will of the People is the final authority on all matters relating to the demogame.

Article J. Turnchats/Turnchat Instruction Thread
Any play of the save, numbering more than one turn, must take place during a public turnchat. Any play numbering less than one turn may take place inside of a private turnchat. In both instances, a log of events must be kept by the designated player.

Section 1. Turnchat Instruction Thread
A turnchat instruction thread must be created at least 3 days before the chat. All official instructions must be posted in the current turnchat instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour prior to the Turnchat. However, officials may make changes to their instructions up to half an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are noted. The Designated Player shall be charged with the creation of a date and time for all public turnchats.

Article K. CivFanatics Forum Rules
The constitution, laws and standards of [Insert Country Name Here] can never be contrary to the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such constitutional amendments, laws or standards.

Article L. Commission of Game Actions
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. Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation of Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance or war to exit the bargain screen. This may be done but the game must be immediately closed without saving.

Article M. Provinces
A province shall be formed by a collection of cities, based on similiar geographic, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. The land as seen on the city-screen, and all land inbetween shall make up the province. The Formation of a Province will be handled VIA discussions and polling, and must be handled in a timely manner. The Culture Minister manages all cities that are not placed under the domain of a province. If the province was created mid-term, the Governor for the remainder of that term is appointed by the President. A province shall be named by it's first elected governor.

Article N. Freedom of Information
All elected/appointed officials are charged with the duty to post enough information for the citizens to make a informed decision. This includes information from the save, discussions, and past polls. Any citizen of the demogame may demand a minister to supply more information. A elected official may appoint a citizen to do this task for them.

Section 1.Ministry Threads
Each Minister shall post a basic department update, every turnchat, inside of there respective Ministry thread. This update must include information about the progress of the minister and there respective duties.

Article O. The Naming Commission
The Naming Commission is charged with the task of creating a list of names for use by the Designated Player in the naming of cities and units. If a citizen fails to create a city name, then they will be skipped.

Section 1. Naming Order
The order of naming cities shall be decided by rank in the CoC. The naming of units shall be decided by the date joined inside of the registry.

Article P. The Aid Committee
The Aid Committee shall be made up of voulantary members appointed by the President, and are tasked with the responsibility of aiding other citizens in the concepts of the game. They are also tasked with the creation of Demogame FAQ's and any other material relating to demogame help. In addition, they are tasked with bringing in, and helping newer players.

Article Q. Vacancies
Any elected official may declare themselves to be Absent for a period of time. 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. Should an official fail to post instructions for 2 consecutive turn chats without prior notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant. If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter for three days, the remaining Justices may declare the Justice Absent. If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter for seven days, the remaining Justices may declare the office Vacant. If all three Justices fail to post on any active Judicial matter for 7 days, the President may declare all Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately appoint a Chief Justice.

Article R. Polling Standards
Polls fall into three categories; Formal, Informal, and Informational.

Section 1. Formal Polls
Formals polls are any poll posted by an elected official covering an area under there jurisdiction. They are used to decide issues in the game, and are considered valid meeting these requirements. A Formal poll must run for 3 days, the poll must include all popular options and abstain. The first post must contain all information regarding the poll, including the discussion thread and ministry thread.

Section 2. Informal Polls
Informals polls are any poll posted by a citizen covering an area that is not under there jurisdiction. They are used to decide issues in the game, and are only considered if the respective minister or the Judiciary recognize it as such. Inorder for an Informal Poll to be considered a Formal Poll, it must meet all of the requirements of a Formal poll.

Section 3. Informational Polls
Informational Polls are any poll posted by a citizen in an attempt to collect information and citizen views over an issue. They are not formal, and require no set time limit. An Informational poll must be recognized as such in either the thread title or the first post of the thread.

Article S. National Budget
The National Budget shall consist of our total amount of gold (lump sum, not gold per turn), at the end of a respective turnchat. It shall also include how much is to be spent next turnchat, and what it's being spent on. The National Budget shall be compiled and posted, inside of the ministry thread and turnchat instruction thread, by the Domestic Miniser each turnchat. The Domestic minister is graced with the ability to distribute all funds contained within the National Budget. They are also tasked with the responsibility of posted how much can be spent each turnchat.

Section 1. Governor Loan
The Domestic Minister shall create a set point of funds to be spent each turnchat, posted within the National Budget. If the current budget has not reached that pre-determined point, a governor may demand a rush, which consits of them informing the Domestic Advisor to add the rush to the National budget without the Domestic Advisors approval. However, if the total sum of gold for the rush will exceed the point defined by the Domestic Advisor, then a governor may not demand the rush. The governor's with more corrupt provinces get priority when demanding a rush, this priority will be decided by the Domestic advisor.

Article T. Chain of Command
The chain of command is used for determining the Designated Player of the chat, if the President has not assigned one. This is to be used if the assigned DP does not show up.

President
Vice President
Domestic Minister
Defense Minister
Trade Minister
Science Minister
Foreign Affairs Minister
Culture Minister
Governors (in order of date joined)
Deputies (in order of Minister)


Article U. Upon Ratification
These article(s) of constitution will not take effect untill the start of the next term. These article(s) of constitution will replace all currently placed article(s) of constitution. Upon the turn of the next term, this article (Article U.) will cease to exist.

Strider JR11

The proposal is not in conflict with any of the laws in the constitution, as it replaces it, go ahead with your mock poll.

Striders changes are not in conflict, they can go get polled.

This could get tricky if both are ratified

We will not be amused if they are posted in the wrong order. First come, first served...

You may see later why this is important -- or maybe not depending on the outcome. :mischief:

We will not be amused if they are posted in the wrong order. First come, first served...

You may see later why this is important -- or maybe not depending on the outcome. :mischief:
because strider is replacing the constitution in whole, if the constitution is changed first then the proposal must be resubmitted :mischief:

because whichever is ratified second is the one that sticks :mischief:

Let's just say not necessarily...

Edit: you edited the post I quoted. I liked the first one better... :lol:

JA Ashburnham's decision will decide the order in which the polls are posted, since he is the last one to represent the Judiciary as a whole. JA Ashburnham is also given the mandate to post both polls as I cannot post any right now, and I will be gone in one day.

and I will be gone in one day.

This sounds like an absence, for how long? Do you have plans for a pro-tem if it will be any length of time?

well Mr CJ, technically the JRs should be polled in the order received, but I won't CC you for it :lol:

Yeh I edited is DS, anyway It shouldnt matter, I doubt people will want both of them...

DS

please take it easy with the drama part, Isaid ONE day. I see too much Shakespeare here, and to little practical understanding.

I will be gone in one day.

There is no drama intended in my question -- just a huge difference between "gone in one day" and "gone for one day". :lol:

Anyway thanks for clearing it up. :)

I find that neither DaveShack's or Strider's proposals conflict with any standing laws, and both will proceed to polling as soon as possible.

And Black_Hole is right in saying that first come, first served when it comes to JR's. DaveShack's proposal will be put up, and therefore be finished, before Strider's.

I find that neither DaveShack's or Strider's proposals conflict with any standing laws, and both will proceed to polling as soon as possible.

And Black_Hole is right in saying that first come, first served when it comes to JR's. DaveShack's proposal will be put up, and therefore be finished, before Strider's.

May I request that mine not be put up untill Wednesday? I'm not going to be here Monday or tuesday, and I'd like to push it through.

Certainly, Strider. This will allow DaveShack's proposal to be voted on alone.

It does not appear the court has acted upon this JR request, even to recognize it as a valid JR.

Quoting from the Constitution:

Article E. The Tactical Branch consists of the the officials in charge
of micromanagement of the game, within the boundaries of
the Strategic Branch's policy. The Tactical Branch consists
of the officials below.


Request for Judicial Review

The quoted section does not appear to place any limitations on what a Strategic Branch policy may contain.

Question: Does this not then imply that the details of any policy by the External Consul which touches upon the areas under that office are binding upon any Tactical Branch official, who is required to follow the Strategic Branch policy in general?

Commentary
The distinction to be made between this JR and the previous JR #9 is that the previous JR focused on who has the power to post the instruction and for the content of the instruction but not on the boundaries which are placed around the instruction. It is my contention that any tactical branch officer must stay within the bounds created by the strategic branch policy.

I will hold the External Consul appointment to allow a ruling on this new request, and if a favorable result is obtained would be inclined to ask Mad-bax to resume his duties. :)

The CJ rules if the JR is valid

Honorable President DS

I have given your last question some serious thought, and since we have no specificatons
for what long term plans are legally binding, and no real differentiation between long and short term decision, the ruling of JR9 still stands as the final word. As you pointed out yourself, we need a rewrite of Articles C-E. The power of posting the instruction is still the only valid and binding one, and before we have a law specifying which long term policy is indeed binding, not advisory, we still only have JR9 to apply.

However, if we had a long term plan posted and polled as an official policy, and an official policy thread with clear mandated policies. I knew you custom made this JR for the sake of mad-bax resignation, or you would have posted it long time ago. However, this time I would rather ask you to write new articles C-E, since the Judiciary is here to only interpret, not fix the constitution. So I stand by my fellow judges, and state that you need to rewrite, poll and ratify new laws that remedy the problem, and not ask the Judiciary to rule out favorable rulings to cover out the ambiguity of the Articles. I am certain many will agree on this, and the fact you already posted a good amendment proposal is testament to the validity of this ruling.

I understand your concern, especially given mad bax's resignation, but the interpretation is that there are no clear guidelines on the matter, and we can only ask for new articles on the matter. Therefore, I judge the ruling give this request No Merit, and refer to JR8 and JR9 on the matter, and ask for the revision of the entire Article C-E to clear this up. If I did this unilaterally, we would get a constitutional crisis even bigger.

However, if we had a long term plan posted and polled as an official policy, and an official policy thread with clear mandated policies.

What were you going to say here? Let me finish it.

However, if we had a long term plan posted and polled as an official policy, and an official policy thread with clear mandated policies, then such a policy would be binding.

Let the other justices decide if they made a mistake.

Edit: added this from the JR procedures
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.

Therefore I request an official position on whether this JR has merit from each member of the judiciary.

I am open to the others ruling on this of course. However, stating something one way or another will not solve the root of the problem, an ambigious constitution.
We simply need to define what is long term and what is short term, and what is binding and what is non-binding. The people that once said this had to be ambigious are now proven wrong, of course, and I will not seek to make ambiguity the objective here.
I still maintain we need more amendments in the line you posted, and not an emergency JR to fix up a very much broken law. We are interpreting, not fixing.

JR#9 does not directly deal with the question that DaveShack has asked, therefore I find this JR to have merit.
This JR deals with how large the Strategic Consul's authority is, not with which office decides the nit and gritty decisions.
Also this is definetly interperatation Mr. Chief Justice.

I will not go into more specifics, these will be saved for the actual JR.

I am open to the others ruling on this of course. However, stating something one way or another will not solve the root of the problem, an ambigious constitution.
We simply need to define what is long term and what is short term, and what is binding and what is non-binding. The people that once said this had to be ambigious are now proven wrong, of course, and I will not seek to make ambiguity the objective here.
I still maintain we need more amendments in the line you posted, and not an emergency JR to fix up a very much broken law. We are interpreting, not fixing.

I agree wholeheartedly with your position. The constitution cannot stay very long how it is, because there could be almost as many reasonable interpretations of any situation as there are people involved with it. I may take up a clarifying amendment of a general nature even before proceeding with the other reorganization plans. :D

I would like to take a risk that there will be no major disagreements with the mock poll, and request advance JR of the attached proposed amendment.

==========================
Do you approve of the attached changes to Article D and Article E of the Constitution, regarding elimination of the Director of Commerce position and distributing its responsibilities among the other elected offices, and for clarification purposes?

Yes
No
Abstain

================================
Old text (unaffected sections are skipped)

Article D.
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.

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.

5. Consul for Cultural Policy - Monitors culture. Pushes
for culture improvements. Fits science and religious
improvements into the big picture. Plans wonder
strategy.

6. Consul for Resources and Technology Policy - Decides on
long term tech queues, long term resource policies,
long term fiscal policies.


Article E.
2. Director of Commerce - Decides on foreign affairs and
trading. Sets exact tech queue. Also decides on espionage
missions.


================================================== ===========

New text, changes are hilighted, bold for insertions / changes, strikethrough for major deletions. Unaffected sections skipped.


Article D.
1. President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple
areas of different Consuls. Sets the overall budget
and balances financial needs. 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.

4. Consul for External Policy - Oversees planning
of policy regarding other nations. This includes
military objectives, declarations of war, peace
treaties, alliances, rights of passage, and mutual protection
pacts. Authorizes building of embassies, diplomatic missions,
and espionage missions. Authorizes trade embargoes

5. Consul for Cultural Policy - Monitors culture. Pushes
for culture improvements and authorizes cash rushing of
improvements. Plans wonder strategy. Authorizes use of
luxury slider vs specialists.

6. Consul for Resources and Technology Policy - Decides on
tech queues, science slider, and all trades which do not involve
items specifically listed under other consuls. Authorizes use
of tech and resources by other departments.

Article E.
1. Commander of Armed Forces - Micromanages the military
operations against foreign countries and unit
(excluding worker, settler, and non-military transport)
movements. Plans military operations within the boundaries
set by the Consul for External Affairs regarding military
objectives. Authorizes unit upgrades within the budget
limits set by the President.

2. Director of Commerce - Decides on foreign affairs and
trading. Sets exact tech queue. Also decides on espionage
missions.

DS please note my proposed changes in line with the previous discussion, and possibly amend some. Then I will speed a generally very decent proposal through the system.

I would like to ask for a JR on this issue.

"Does every elected office need to have an offical thread?"

The reason for asking this is that I do not see a thread for the Director of Commerce.

@classical hero,
You usually need to state a piece of the law as part of your question. Anyway, its a moot point as the Term 2 thread for commerce is http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=115751

JR 11

Classical Hero has a very valid point, and I would cite the right to information in the preamble for that, and may consider this a gap in the constitution. Merit granted.

DS please note my proposed changes in line with the previous discussion, and possibly amend some. Then I will speed a generally very decent proposal through the system.

You wrote a lot in the discussion thread, some of which was tightly focused on the amendment at hand and some which was not. ;) Please check my response there and if there are real issues for the current proposal feel free to be a bit more specific. This goes for everyone BTW. :)

Mr. CJ please post a list of all out standing JRs that need to be ruled upon.

I find DaveShack's changes not valid. The poll must be posted 24 hours in the thread before submission to the judiciary.

I will post in the needed thing for the changes to be added by the mods...

I find DaveShack's changes not valid. The poll must be posted 24 hours in the thread before submission to the judiciary.


Or you can rule on it after the 24 hours have passed... ;)

Or you can rule on it after the 24 hours have passed... ;)
Ill take that as a resubmission ;)

I find the proposed legislation is valid and may move onto the polling process

I, too, find that DaveShack's proposal is valid.

However, I must disagree with Chief Justice Provolution's decision that Classical_hero's JR has merit.

I would like to ask for a JR on this issue.

"Does every elected office need to have an offical thread?"

The reason for asking this is that I do not see a thread for the Director of Commerce.
As MOTH points out, the Constitution or CoL must be cited in any JR. The very fact that there is nothing in either document that have any relevance to CH's querry should be answer enough.

I agree with JA Ashburnham here, but will at the same time ask for a revision of the Judicial Procedures at the same time. Proposed change in the Judicial Procedure is to let the Preamble be excempt from the citation requirement for asking for JR's.

Classical Hero, please cite the Preamble or I will deem your request to have no merit.

He doesn't have to cite the preamble, other articles may be better

Actually Commerce does have a thread.

It's here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=115751).

Here are the parts of the Law that are needed.
Preamble. 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 I. Elected officials must plan and act according to the Will
of the People. The Will of the People will be determined
through discussions and polls.

Since there is indeed a thread, but for some reason I misssed it, is this JR needed? I would say that it is just ot clear up and loopholes that we might have.

On my proposed amendment, do we need to wait for the CJ to post it?

He doesn't have to cite the preamble, other articles may be better

Try Article M, section 1.


Article M. All elected/appointed officials are charged with the duty
to post enough information for the citizens to make a
informed decision. This includes information from the save,
discussions, and past polls. Any citizen of the demogame
may demand an official to supply more information within
their area. A elected official may appoint a citizen to do
this task for them.


1. Each Minister shall post a basic department update,
every turnchat, inside of there respective Ministry
thread. This update must include information about the
progress of the minister and their respective duties.

We need to add a new function to the Judiciary. When a citizen wants advice of the form "what law says that people need to do this" or "what does the law say about how this should be done" they need to be able to ask that type of question without themselves knowing everything about the law.

Another thought, if a JR does not have a good reference, and a justice knows what law ought to apply, then how about we help each other out a little here and cut people at least a little slack. Or if you prefer a citizen like me to be helping with every case can I get a little bit of compensation? :D

I think requiring citizens to cite a certain article for a JR is an effective way of diffusing unneeded JR's. For instance, if someone wondered "Gee, which Justice acts as the prosecuter for Citizen's Complaints?" instead of posting it as a JR, they need to look through the Constitution. There, they would see this:
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.
Problem solved. No JR is necessary. By requiring citizens to cite an article, we allow the Judiciary to focus only on issues where the law is unclear or lacking. Not issues that are easily solved by a quick perusal of the law books.

I think requiring citizens to cite a certain article for a JR is an effective way of diffusing unneeded JR's. For instance, if someone wondered "Gee, which Justice acts as the prosecuter for Citizen's Complaints?" instead of posting it as a JR, they need to look through the Constitution.

The objective of limiting official JRs to areas of true ambiguity is a good one. It is also true that we can and should encourage citizens to try to find the appropriate law instead of just posting a question without even looking.

However, look at this thread, and pretty much every judiciary thread back several games now, and you will see a lot of places where people don't look for the reference themselves, and post that they don't know what law to try to apply to the situation. Other times the wrong reference is posted and in some cases the judiciary blindly interprets the reference from the JR and not the true question of the JR.

I think this phenomenon is evidence that our efforts to force the general public to understand the law and provide a valid reference for their questions have failed miserably. There does not seem to be any hope that we can expect every single request for a JR to have a reference, nor is it clear that the reference cited is always the correct one. Our experts in the law need to be general-purpose experts in the law, and not an ivory tower that people can only approach once they first prove some knowledge of the law themselves.

Honorable President Daveshack

Please be more specific on the matter of "Ivory Tower". As far as the Judiciary is concerned, we have no Ivory, and we are not in a position to develop the Statue of Zeus, and we have not discussed and polled it. All queries are therefore dismissed based on the fact that Ivory is not covered in by government actions or constitutions.
No Merit to Ivory.

That was the article I was thinking of DS, however to remain unbiased I plan to not post/ update any JRs while in the Judiciary.

What is this ivory Provoultion?!?

I concur with Ashburnham that a law must be posted to be considered valid. However DaveShack has done so.

I am also against chaning the judicial procedures on this, Ashburnham pretty muchly summed it up, having people cite the article makes them read the constitution before asking it to be interpereted.

First a few points of order:
1. Urgent (and almost urgent): Article Y part 3 states that polls on changing the constitution must be open for at least 96 hours. The 2 current polls will each only be open for 72 hours. Can you please request that a Mod change the end dates on these two polls?
This one closes in about 3 hours and is urgent: Changes to articles D and E (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116912)
This one closes in about 2.5 days and is less urgent: Strider's Proposal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=117076)
2. The Judicial Code states that the CJ is responsible for posting the active Census at the beginning of the term. I can not find any post indicating a census. Can one please be posted?
3. There are 3 current polls that have not made it to the constitution or CoL thread. I note that Black Hole has requested in the needed things thread that the frist 2 should be changed. Please add the third as well. I also suggest that Black Hole post the actual text that should be inserted and reletter instead of using X and Y: CoL Y (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=114978), Article X and Y (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=114975), and Addition of A.1.A CoL (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116188)

{snip} {snip}

Saying whether someone is being scrutinized, harrassed, or humiliated is purely from point of view - it changes for everyone. I can't see how a law can protect voters from scrutiny unless all polls are made private. You're entitled to vote however you want, and you should be proud you voted that way. Don't let others change your instincts on voting.

That's my view on things...

I have no idea where to look for in the consitution that gives me the right to vote without being screutenized (spelling) or harassed. I hope the judicary can help me on this one. If there are none in existance, I wish that the law could be created to protect voters the right to vote without being screutenized (spelling?), Harrassed, or humiliated.

Thanks,
CivGeneral

That's part of a moderators duties, and he's been reported already. Usually harrassment earns a ban.

<snip> ...

Officially, CG was conclusion jumping. I did not name anyone, and still have not named anyone, and do not plan to name anyone. ;)

That law CG, would be contradictory of itself. Article A says all citizens have the right to freedom of speech(of course the moderators are here to enforce forum rules). So if citizen b scrutinizes citizen a for his vote, it is within the same right that allows citizen a to stand up for what he wants.

That law CG, would be contradictory of itself. Article A says all citizens have the right to freedom of speech(of course the moderators are here to enforce forum rules). So if citizen b scrutinizes citizen a for his vote, it is within the same right that allows citizen a to stand up for what he wants.

Nope, as citizen A is the one violating citizen B's rights, then citizen A loses all of his rights.

Nope, as citizen A is the one violating citizen B's rights, then citizen A loses all of his rights.
I see, our citizens lose their rights if their rights can be used to question others...
also there is nothing saying that citizen a will lose all of thier rights, thats in the us constitution but not demogame

I see, our citizens lose their rights if their rights can be used to question others...
also there is nothing saying that citizen a will lose all of thier rights, thats in the us constitution but not demogame

It's basic Judiciary standards in almost all governments/organizations/etc. While citizen B does not lose all of his rights, he does lose several.

unwritten laws should not be above written ones, that is also a common judicial standard

unwritten laws should not be above written ones, that is also a common judicial standard

Okay, so then you CC Daveshack for disobeying CG's rights, and then you CC yourself. Very logical... :rolleyes:

Okay, so then you CC Daveshack for disobeying CG's rights, and then you CC yourself. Very logical... :rolleyes:
well I didnt say that, and why are we naming names? DaveShack never said anyone in particular...
I am saying they both have rights to vote how they want and scrutinize other for voting. If I wasn't a judiciary member I would CC myself for disobeying article (unwritten), however I must uphold my promise as a judiciary member not to start JRs or CCs ;)

Sorry gang, but DaveShack was talking about me. You see, I originally voted for the Traditional Proposal way back when but "flip-flopped" to the Alternative structure for the poll in question. It was his way of respectfully responding to my questionable comments about off-topic matters in another thread.

I know that Dave meant no harm in this, as I deserved much more than this. Therefore I do not wish to press charges. Please consider this matter closed.

CG, you brought this one on yourself, dude. The articles in Camelot Times were puzzling at best, and I can see why you may have been confused by Dave's statements. Get over yourself. ;)

CG, you brought this one on yourself, dude. The articles in Camelot Times were puzzling at best, and I can see why you may have been confused by Dave's statements. Get over yourself. ;)

I should have not jumped to conclusions and just asked him in a private manner :blush:. If anyone needs me, Ill be in my office feeling guilty about bringing this onto myself.

I'm confused, what is the status of the JR for my 2nd amendment, dealing with the Commerce Director position? I had hoped to have the poll opened by now with the understanding that there is a 3rd amendment to come which doesn't need to be done before the elections, dealing with the text editing changes which were requested.

I can't believe I got two reported posts over this...

That's part of a moderators duties, and he's been reported already. Usually harrassment earns a ban.

Why don't you leave that up to the moderators and learn to leave your personal grudges out of it? As you said to someone earlier tonight, you should speak for yourself and noone else. This should not have been brought up in the judiciary, or in public at all, for that matter.

I shall with draw my JR, because it is blatantly obvious, according to the Constitution, that every ministry needs to have a thread associated with it. :thanx: Dave Shack

I have already ruled on your amendments DS, they are valid.
the other 2 justices havent yet

Request for review:

Please review the following amendment polls conducted towards the end of Term 1 to see if they were approved or not. This was not, unfortunately, done despite requests. If they do pass, please request that they be added to the laws.

Poll 1: Constitution: Articles on Census and Amendments (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=114975)

Poll 2: Code of Laws: Amendments and Confirmation of Deputies (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=114978)

Poll 3: Code of Laws: Naming captured cities (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116188)

Please note that the first two polls are, in fact, circular references. That is, they define the criteria for their acceptance. The discussion on them notes the reasons for this (lack of time, haste and missed sections by myself during chaos and madness).

My personal interpretation is that poll 1 failed, poll 2 passed and poll 3 passed.

My thanks,
-- Ravensfire

I am ok if there are some weak souls over-reporting statements for political reasons in order to ostracize political opponents. That is weak, pathological, inferior and not worthy a man. A grown up debater would answer in kind and quit asking for big daddy to interfere. I am not in that tribe.

Ravensfire
I concur with your opinions on the merited polls, and I rule Poll 2 and Poll 3 ot have merit, and Poll 1 Failed.

Daveshack
Your proposals do have merit, go ahead and poll them

MOTH
Current cencus is based upon the poll with the most votes during the election, I will look into that right away.

CENSUS

Chief Justice election was most contested, 38 votes is now the official cencus.
36 became the average contested, after reviewing numbers.
18 votes is the average votes needed for majority, and 24 votes needed for 2/3.

Daveshack
Your proposals do have merit, go ahead and poll them


A member of the judiciary has to do it for them to be valid.

Ravensfire
I concur with your opinions on the merited polls, and I rule Poll 2 and Poll 3 ot have merit, and Poll 1 Failed.


On what grounds would poll 1 fail? BTW, at least one other member of the judiciary has already ruled that these polls passed.

All polls passed, requirements are:
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.
It must pass one of the following, of which it had 80% of votes, which is more than the 66% needed.

I find that all three polls passed

CENSUS

Chief Justice election was most contested, 38 votes is now the official cencus.
19 votes is the average votes needed for majority, and 23 votes needed for 2/3.
its not most contested, its average of all contested...

On what grounds would poll 1 fail? BTW, at least one other member of the judiciary has already ruled that these polls passed.

Poll 1 got too few votes.

Poll 1 got too few votes.
read the article provo, it says either you need a simpler majority + 60% of census voting OR 2/3(66%) of all votes, it received 81% of votes. 81 > 66

ok, on a closer read I also pass Poll 1, but would like someone to post an amendment with a minimum Census number to pass a law. Or we may get situations where 9 citizens may approve a law.

Indeed. All three of ravensfire's polls passed. Glad we got that out of the way.

Still waiting on a judiciary member to post my latest amendment poll so it will be valid. I'm beginning to wonder why it isn't posted yet. :confused:

CENSUS

Chief Justice election was most contested, 38 votes is now the official cencus.
36 became the average contested, after reviewing numbers.
18 votes is the average votes needed for majority, and 22 votes needed for 2/3.

nitpick: 2/3 of 36 is 24, not 22.

zyxy, Census corrected. The amendments is still needed IMHO, as the political culture of this demogame does not allow us to develop planning and decision interchange in certain ways. In finality, we need the reform for creating better procedures in general.

Submission for Judicial Review for conflicts with existing law:
The constitution is clear that naming of cities and units lies with the President.
From article D. 1. President:
He/she has the following
responsibilities, and may appoint a citizen to oversee
a responsibility: Naming of Cities and Units,
etc.

The Code of Laws conflicts with this article in parts A.1.a (city naming) and A.1.c (unit naming). The following proposed poll has sat for greater than 24 hours for comment.

Proposed Poll
Do you approve of the following changes to Code Of Laws sections A.1.a and A.1.c?

Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=117199)

Yes/No/Abstain choices.

The poll will run for at least 96 hours.

OLD relavent parts of current law (unchanging sections replaced with ... )
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.

...

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

Proposed changes to strike reference to director of expansion in A.1.a. and replace references to Comander of Armed forces with president in A.1.c. Changes are in Bold
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 President (or appointee) 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.

...

c. Unit Names
The President (or appointee) will utilize the unit naming
preferences within the Citizen Registry thread to rename
all military units.
...

MOTH, go ahead. the proposal is very valid.

I temporariliy withdraw my request for a review of proposed legislation. It is apparent from reading comments in the last TCIT that more sweeping reforms need to be made in regard to unit naming to make the game play proceed more smoothly. I will resubmit after appropriate proposals and review.

MOTH, go ahead. the proposal is very valid.
1. All three justices need to rule on a JR, not just one
2. A judicial member posts the poll

Indeed, I did not say anything else Black Hole, again you rush prematurely to conclusions, of course all of you need to go on.

Indeed, I did not say anything else Black Hole, again you rush prematurely to conclusions, of course all of you need to go on.
Telling moth to "go on" is basically telling him to post the poll, of which there are two problems with(listed above)

Well, the point is mute. MOTH is going to rewrite the legislation. Most likely it won't be re-proposed until Term 3. Let it go.

Ok, get back to work. Term 2 isn't over yet. ;) I am submitting this to the Term 2 court for Judicial Review of the following proposed legislation. I must submit it here as I may not have time to do it if I wait for a Term 3 thread.

proposed poll:
Do you approve of the following changes to the Code of Laws?
Yes/No/Abstain and will run for at least 96 hours.

Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=117199)

OLD relavent parts of current law (unchanging sections replaced with ..., changed sections in bold )
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.

...

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

New Changes are in Bold
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 President (or appointee) will include the city names
to be used in the TCIT. No citizen may name more
than one city until all citizens have named a city.

...

c. Unit Names
The President (or appointee) will utilize the unit naming
preferences within the Citizen Registry thread to rename
all military units. Unit names to be used will be included in
the TCIT.
1. Naming Convention - Unit names will include a unit type
designation. If the citizen did not include an appropriate
type then one will be added by the DP. Ex: "Spice Raider" is
designated in the Citizen Registry, so the DP will name it:
"MDI - Spice Raider".
2. Ease of Game Play - We will go through the citizen registry
only one time to get unit names. Once we have gone
through the list any new citizens will be added to the next
built unit. Also, any citizen whose named unit no longer
exists may request from the President (or designate) to
have a new unit named with their choice.
3. Renaming Existing Units - After upgrades the DP may rename
units as appropriate at the next convienent time. Any
existing units not following these naming conventions may
also be renamed by the DP as appropriate at the next
convienent time.

...

this will be automatically moved to term 3 thread, we only have 1 more day of term 2 so we cant start a poll within that time

Why can't we? We only have to be in session to open the poll, we don't have to stay around for it to close.

we have 24 hours... plus provo is still behind and hasnt posted a single thing in the judicial procedures thread

MOTH is is valid and has merit .

I agree with Provo. BlackHole, all you have to do is approve of the legislation and put up the poll and the problem's solved. :)

Okay, the changes are fine...
However you haven't officially ruled on them ash...

Okay, the changes are fine...
However you haven't officially ruled on them ash...

I would call the preceeding post a highly informal ruling. Somebody go ahead and post it please. :D

I find the legislation proposed by Moth as a Citizen of Fanatannia to be valid. The poll may go onto polling.

How is that DS? ;)
The poll is posted, it looks like Ash did approve of it.

How is that DS? ;)


Actually I was commenting that Ashburnham seemed to have approved it. It all came out ok. :)

Now, it would be extremely helpful if the judicial log could be updated with the results from term 2, pretty please. :D