The Public Defender is part of the Judicial Branch along with the Chief Justice and Judge Advocate, and is tasked with upholding, clarifying and reviewing all changes to the Constitution and its supporting laws through Judicial Reviews, and upholding the rights of all citizens through Investigations. The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.

The Public Defender will act as council to an accused citizen, if the accused citizen wishes.

Please submit nominations for the Public Defender in this thread and Accept or Decline any nominations you may receive. Self nominations are allowed. Citizens may only run for one elected position.

Nominations will close and elections open 00:00 GMT on the 27 September (that’s 8pm EDT 26 September).

Please Note: I shall start closing the nomination threads and posting the polls approx 1½ hours early at 22:30 GMT (6:30 PM EDT), 26 September.

I nominate Civman2004 and Octavian_X.

I nominate mhcarver.

Exert from logs of the 2005 Fanatikan national nominating convention
People of Fanatikos, I stand before you today simply wishing to make a point. These days many are focused on what will happen to our mighty nation in these coming years as war rips the continent apart and threatens the very stability of our nation. I would be lying to you all if I said that this was not one of my primary concerns , however we as a nation must remain united with a strong court to interpret and enforce the laws since a house divided against itself cannot stand. This past court has done an outstanding job in carrying out it’s tasks, I highly commend Chief Justice Ravensfire for the exceptional work he has done with the court and wish him the best of luck in his presidential campaign. But I feel that I can do even better, in order to combat growing dissent within our nation we need a court that will force a debate , not abstain from it, we need a court that isn’t afraid to speak it’s mind, to annoy people, to force people to become active and compromise when they don’t like it’s rulings, and we need a court that will continue to be strong. I believe I can do these things, so I stand before you today to announce my candidacy to become the next public defender of fanatikos!!!

......so I stand before you today to announce my candidacy to become the next public defender of fanatikos!!!

Hooray! :rockon: I heartily endorse the candidacy of mhcarver.

No questions ? no challengers? are the people of Fanaticos going to allow a somewhat belligerent reporter/poltical analyst to gain the task of defending their rights without any questions? I fully encourgage and endorse the potential candidacy of Strider, or anybody willing to run for this office, not because I have any intention of losing but because I believe that we need more debate in this most important offices in order to strenghten our nation.

-Mhcarver
Candidate

mhcarver,

Will you abstain in any Judiciary Review? And, do you follow a conservative or liberal interpretation of the Constitution?

Civlord

mhcarver,

Will you abstain in any Judiciary Review? And, do you follow a conservative or liberal interpretation of the Constitution?

Civlord
1. I'll make this one of my campaign pledges, I will never abstain from a judicial review period, one of the duties of the court is to rule on all issues even if that ruling is controversial. I would like to add that should an issue directly relate to me somehow such as a CC then I would recuse myself but make sure that a neutral party would rule on the issue.

2.For this I would say that I am more of a moderate when it comes to interpreting the constitution, when the constitution doesn't clearly state something in stone then I tend to have a liberal interpretation, I also believe that when faced with a case in which a ruling would essentially shoot our nation in the foot that I would liberally interpret the rule to make sure we didn't destroy ourselves

Please Note: I shall start closing the nomination threads and posting the polls approx 1½ hours early at 22:30 GMT (6:30 PM EDT), 26 September.

To candidates:

Do you believe that the principle of 'stare decisis' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis) should be followed in all court rulings by which a civilian brings up a claim that has already been ruled upon? Do you believe all rulings by future courts should hold such precedent? More specifically, if a court issue were to come up that is very similar to a previous case, would you treat the outcome of that case as part of your reason for deciding upon the new case? If so, what factors of the old case would you consider?

- Age of case?
- Change in Fanatikos society since the case?
- Persons on the Judiciary when the prior conclusion was found?
- Personal views on the past case?
- Laws since changed since the past case?
- Others?

To candidates:

Do you believe that the principle of 'stare decisis' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis) should be followed in all court rulings by which a civilian brings up a claim that has already been ruled upon? Do you believe all rulings by future courts should hold such precedent? More specifically, if a court issue were to come up that is very similar to a previous case, would you treat the outcome of that case as part of your reason for deciding upon the new case? If so, what factors of the old case would you consider?

- Age of case?
- Change in Fanatikos society since the case?
- Persons on the Judiciary when the prior conclusion was found?
- Personal views on the past case?
- Laws since changed since the past case?
- Others?
I am a firm believer in the principle of stare decisis. In my mind all rulings by the court, even the ones I disagree with are final and may not be overturned directly by the courts. The only way in which a ruling of the court may be overturned is if the house of the peoples sucessfully passes legislation that would in effect reverse the ruling. It is my belief that the only way a law may be declared unconstitutional is if it somehow conflicts with another law, IE a code of laws amendment being directly contradictory to constitution. Other than that all rulings issued by previous courts are valid unless legislation is passed that contradicts the ruling

This Nomination Thread is now closed for nominations. Please continue any debates/discussions in the Election Thread

Thank You