Welcome to the Civ4 DemoGame Judiciary for Term 1.

Chief Justice: DaveShack
Public Defender: Ravensfire
Judge Advocate: donsig

The Laws of [insert nation name]:
Link to Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3514690&postcount=2)
Link to CoL part 1 CoL part 2

Current Status: Open for business.

Common Rights and Duties of all Citizens
Participate in all Judicial discussions
Request that any Judicial discussion be moved to its own thread in the Citizen's forum
Post requests for Judicial Review of existing law. These requests should contain a specific question and the section of law in question
Post requests for Judicial Review of proposed amendments. This request should contain the exact text to be reviewed and a link to the discussion thread
Post requests for clarification. This is an unofficial question about the rules that does not create a finding, but may lead to a Judicial Review
Post requests for Citizen Complaints. This is a request to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. This request must be posted in the Judicial thread. There are no anonymous requests. Shared duties and responsibilities of all Justices

Conduct the business of the court in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner
Review and discuss any questions about our laws
Review all proposed Amendments to our laws
Review all requested Citizen Complaints to determine if the charge has merit
Participate in all Citizen Complaints in a fair and impartial manner
Post clear and decisive opinions on all questions. Abstentions are not allowed
Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures
Recuse themself from any Citizen Complaints that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the CC, or as the citizen under investigation. Rights and Duties of the Chief Justice

Post polls for amendments once they pass review
Post any valid Recall poll
Oversee all Judicial Proceedings
Maintain the Judicial Log
Appoint all Pro-Tem justices and seek confirmation by the President
Request that other justices post an opinion promptly
Maintain the docket and decide the priority level of cases Rights and Duties of the Judge Advocate

Serve as the Prosecution during any trial of a citizen. In this role, the Judge Advocate need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side
Post polls for amendments and recalls Rights and Duties of the Public Defender

Serve as the Defense during a trial of a citizen, unless requested otherwise by the citizen. In this role, the Public Defender need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side
Post polls for amendments and recalls
Changes to Judicial Procedures
The Judicial Procedures may be changed at any time by a majority decision of the court.

Judicial Reviews
Judicial Reviews are used to resolve questions of the law and to validate proposed amendments. The opinion of a majority of the Justices will be used to resolve the Judicial Review.

Reviews of existing laws may be requested by anyone. The Chief Justice shall review each request for merit. If the Chief Justice declines the request, either of the other two Justices may accept the request and override the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will post each accepted request, clearly denoting the questions. After at least 24 hours, each Justice may post their finding. This post should clearly answer the questions as posed by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may request that the justices post their opinion promptly, requiring all justices to make a ruling within 72 hours. The Chief Justice may request clarification of these findings as needed.

Reviews of a proposed law may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed law, and a link to the discussion thread. The proposed law must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. The Justices will review the law for any conflicts with current law, and post their findings. Any Justice may post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

All reviews must be finished by the end of the term if at all possible. The Chief Justice may defer a Judicial Review to the next term if it is filed less than 72 hours before the end of this term.

Absence Investigations
Absence Investigations are used to determine the status of an elected official who has not posted for an extended period of time and to remove that citizen from office if necessary. Any citizen may initiate an Absence Investigation if an elected official fails to post on the Civilization Fanatics' Forums for 7 days.

If a valid Absence Investigation is called, the Chief Justice is to start the investigation by indicating that an Absence Investigation has started. The Chief Justice must then send a private message to the official against whom the investigation has been called. An e-mail should also be sent if possible. The official will have 48 hours to respond to the private message. At the end of this time, or after a response has been received by the official in question, the Chief Justice may declare the commencement of voting on whether or not the seat should be rendered vacant. Each justice should clearly post their vote on this issue. If a majority of justices vote in favor of declaring the office vacant, the official shall be removed and the President empowered to appoint another citizen to that post.

Citizen Complaints
Citizen complaints are used to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. They may be requested by any citizen in a post in the Judicial thread. Except as noted, the Justices must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner throughout the process. All citizens are innocent unless determined to be guilty. Citizen Complaints shall be completed by the end of the term, unless the Judiciary finds this to be impossible, in which case the next term’s court may finish the investigation. All evidence, except foreknowledge of the game, must be presented publicly. Evidence of foreknowledge of the game will be reviewed by the Judiciary, and a statement about that evidence posted. Once that evidence becomes irrelevant due to game progress, any citizen may request it to be posted.

Any citizen who is the defendant of a Citizen Complaint shall have the right to representation throughout the process. The Public Defender shall be tasked with defending each citizen charged with an offense from the moment the Citizen Complaint is filed until the complaint is concluded, unless another citizen is appointed by the defendant to serve as the Defense, with that citizen's consent.

At any time during a citizen complaint, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the citizen complaint unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

If a citizen has been found innocent of a charge or if the citizen has been found guilty and sentenced appropriately, the citizen may not be charged again with the same violation.

Review
Each requested Citizen Complaint will be reviewed by the Judiciary. Justices will gather and look through the evidence presented, including requests for statements from all citizens. If all three Justices determine the request to have No Merit, the basis for that finding will be posted by each Justice and the request is denied. If at least one Justice determines the request to have Merit, a trial on the facts will be conducted. The Judge Advocate will review the request and the relevant law, and determine the specific law the accused citizen is alleged to have violated.

Trial
The Judge Advocate will create a thread for the trial in the Citizen's forum. This initial post should contain the specific violations and the evidence for those accusations. The next two posts are reserved for the citizen accused and the Public Defender - until they post, or 24 hours from the initial post, no other citizen may post in the thread. All citizens are encouraged to post in this thread, but are reminded to respect the rights of all citizens.

Once the at least 48 hours have passed, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will be a private poll, with the options Innocent, Guilty and Abstain. It will run for 48 hours. The option receiving the most votes will determine the result. In the event of a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the result by posting clear opinions in the Trial thread.

Sentencing
If a citizen under investigation during a Citizen Complaint has accepted the charges, the citizen, the accuser and the Judiciary may determine and assign a sentence if they all unanimously agree to the arrangement. Failure to uphold that arrangement will result in full sentencing poll posted as if the citizen were found guilty in a Trial.

If an arrangement cannot be made, or the citizen was found Guilty, the sentence will be determined by the citizens through a poll. The Chief Justice will post the poll, marked as private with a duration of 48 hours. The options for the poll will include:

Suspension from Demogame
Removal from Office (if applicable)
Public Apology
Final Warning
Warning
Abstain Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

Once the poll closes, the Chief Justice will determine the sentence imposed using cumulative voting. The most severe option that a majority of citizens support will be imposed. If a Warning is issued, a warning will be posted by the Chief Justice in the Judicial thread and may be reposted in that person’s government thread, if they hold an office. If a citizen is given a Final Warning, the above procedure will be used, but with stronger language. Additionally, the options “Warning” and “Final Warning” will not appear on a sentencing poll if that citizen is charged with a similar offense in the future. If a citizen is sentenced to a Public Apology, a thread apologizing for the actions taken must be posted by the defendant within 48 hours of the close of the sentencing poll. If the citizen is removed from office, they are barred from holding that office for the remainder of the term. The length of a suspension is to be determined by the Judiciary, with the required consent of the moderators.

C4DG1JR1 - Determining the validity of the Code of Laws ratification
Discussion thread link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152793)
Ruling link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3560715&postcount=57)

C4DG1JR2 - Review of an amendment providing for the impeachment of Governors.
Link to request (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3549084&postcount=42)
Link to decision


C4DG1JR3 - Does impeachment of the triumvirate have to remove all members?

Link to request
Link to decision


C4DG1JR4 - May a citizen hold multiple offices?

Link to request
Link to decision


C4DG1JR5 - Proposed amendment on multiple offices and filling vacancies

Link to thread containing mock poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=155166)
Link to decision

A place to have information and links on Citizen Complaints, if we have any.

Absense Investigation, Alphawolf (President)
Link to request (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3560718&postcount=58)
Link to ruling

Absense Investigation C4DG1AI2, Aythaneous (Minister of the Interior)
Link to request
Link to ruling

congratulations on your election DS, or should I say Mr.Chief Justice:cool: I look forward to serving under you again, hopefully this term will be more eventful then the last time you where CJ

-mhcarver
Office of the Judge Advocate

For our judicial procedures, I've decided to start off by shamelessly copying the Civ3 demogame procedures, which have served us well for the last 10 terms or so with little or no changes. :cool:

I have not reviewed these proposed procedures in full, nor have I checked them against the ratified Constitution or Code of Laws.

Common Rights and Duties of all Citizens
Participate in all Judicial discussions
Request that any Judicial discussion be moved to its own thread in the Citizen's forum
Post requests for Judicial Review of existing law. These requests should contain a specific question and the section of law in question
Post requests for Judicial Review of proposed amendments. This request should contain the exact text to be reviewed and a link to the discussion thread
Post requests for clarification. This is an unofficial question about the rules that does not create a finding, but may lead to a Judicial Review
Post requests for Citizen Complaints. This is a request to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. This request must be posted in the Judicial thread. There are no anonymous requests. Shared duties and responsibilities of all Justices

Conduct the business of the court in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner
Review and discuss any questions about our laws
Review all proposed Amendments to our laws
Review all requested Citizen Complaints to determine if the charge has merit
Participate in all Citizen Complaints in a fair and impartial manner
Post clear and decisive opinions on all questions. Abstentions are not allowed
Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures
Recuse themself from any Citizen Complaints that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the CC, or as the citizen under investigation. Rights and Duties of the Chief Justice

Post polls for amendments once they pass review
Post any valid Recall poll
Oversee all Judicial Proceedings
Maintain the Judicial Log
Appoint all Pro-Tem justices and seek confirmation by the President
Request that other justices post an opinion promptly
Maintain the docket and decide the priority level of cases Rights and Duties of the Judge Advocate

Serve as the Prosecution during any trial of a citizen. In this role, the Judge Advocate need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side
Post polls for amendments and recalls Rights and Duties of the Public Defender

Serve as the Defense during a trial of a citizen, unless requested otherwise by the citizen. In this role, the Public Defender need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side
Post polls for amendments and recalls
Judicial Reviews
Judicial Reviews are used to resolve questions of the law and to validate proposed amendments. The opinion of a majority of the Justices will be used to resolve the Judicial Review.

Reviews of existing laws may be requested by anyone. The Chief Justice shall review each request for merit. If the Chief Justice declines the request, either of the other two Justices may accept the request and override the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will post each accepted request, clearly denoting the questions. After at least 24 hours, each Justice may post their finding. This post should clearly answer the questions as posed by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may request that the justices post their opinion promptly, requiring all justices to make a ruling within 72 hours. The Chief Justice may request clarification of these findings as needed.

Reviews of a proposed law may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed law, and a link to the discussion thread. The proposed law must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. The Justices will review the law for any conflicts with current law, and post their findings. Any Justice may post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

All reviews must be finished by the end of the term if at all possible. The Chief Justice may defer a Judicial Review to the next term if it is filed less than 72 hours before the end of this term.

Absence Investigations
Absence Investigations are used to determine the status of an elected official who has not posted for an extended period of time and to remove that citizen from office if necessary. Any citizen may initiate an Absence Investigation if an elected official fails to post on the Civilization Fanatics' Forums for 7 days.

If a valid Absence Investigation is called, the Chief Justice is to start the investigation by indicating that an Absence Investigation has started. The Chief Justice must then send a private message to the official against whom the investigation has been called. An e-mail should also be sent if possible. The official will have 48 hours to respond to the private message. At the end of this time, or after a response has been received by the official in question, the Chief Justice may declare the commencement of voting on whether or not the seat should be rendered vacant. Each justice should clearly post their vote on this issue. If a majority of justices vote in favor of declaring the office vacant, the official shall be removed and the President empowered to appoint another citizen to that post.

Citizen Complaints
Citizen complaints are used to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. They may be requested by any citizen in a post in the Judicial thread. Except as noted, the Justices must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner throughout the process. All citizens are innocent unless determined to be guilty. Citizen Complaints shall be completed by the end of the term, unless the Judiciary finds this to be impossible, in which case the next term’s court may finish the investigation. All evidence, except foreknowledge of the game, must be presented publicly. Evidence of foreknowledge of the game will be reviewed by the Judiciary, and a statement about that evidence posted. Once that evidence becomes irrelevant due to game progress, any citizen may request it to be posted.

Any citizen who is the defendant of a Citizen Complaint shall have the right to representation throughout the process. The Public Defender shall be tasked with defending each citizen charged with an offense from the moment the Citizen Complaint is filed until the complaint is concluded, unless another citizen is appointed by the defendant to serve as the Defense, with that citizen's consent.

At any time during a citizen complaint, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the citizen complaint unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

If a citizen has been found innocent of a charge or if the citizen has been found guilty and sentenced appropriately, the citizen may not be charged again with the same violation.

Review
Each requested Citizen Complaint will be reviewed by the Judiciary. Justices will gather and look through the evidence presented, including requests for statements from all citizens. If all three Justices determine the request to have No Merit, the basis for that finding will be posted by each Justice and the request is denied. If at least one Justice determines the request to have Merit, a trial on the facts will be conducted. The Judge Advocate will review the request and the relevant law, and determine the specific law the accused citizen is alleged to have violated.

Trial
The Judge Advocate will create a thread for the trial in the Citizen's forum. This initial post should contain the specific violations and the evidence for those accusations. The next two posts are reserved for the citizen accused and the Public Defender - until they post, or 24 hours from the initial post, no other citizen may post in the thread. All citizens are encouraged to post in this thread, but are reminded to respect the rights of all citizens.

Once the at least 48 hours have passed, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will be a private poll, with the options Innocent, Guilty and Abstain. It will run for 48 hours. The option receiving the most votes will determine the result. In the event of a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the result by posting clear opinions in the Trial thread.

Sentencing
If a citizen under investigation during a Citizen Complaint has accepted the charges, the citizen, the accuser and the Judiciary may determine and assign a sentence if they all unanimously agree to the arrangement. Failure to uphold that arrangement will result in full sentencing poll posted as if the citizen were found guilty in a Trial.

If an arrangement cannot be made, or the citizen was found Guilty, the sentence will be determined by the citizens through a poll. The Chief Justice will post the poll, marked as private with a duration of 48 hours. The options for the poll will include:

Suspension from Demogame
Removal from Office (if applicable)
Public Apology
Final Warning
Warning
Abstain Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

Once the poll closes, the Chief Justice will determine the sentence imposed using cumulative voting. The most severe option that a majority of citizens support will be imposed. If a Warning is issued, a warning will be posted by the Chief Justice in the Judicial thread and may be reposted in that person’s government thread, if they hold an office. If a citizen is given a Final Warning, the above procedure will be used, but with stronger language. Additionally, the options “Warning” and “Final Warning” will not appear on a sentencing poll if that citizen is charged with a similar offense in the future. If a citizen is sentenced to a Public Apology, a thread apologizing for the actions taken must be posted by the defendant within 48 hours of the close of the sentencing poll. If the citizen is removed from office, they are barred from holding that office for the remainder of the term. The length of a suspension is to be determined by the Judiciary, with the required consent of the moderators[/quote]

Wow! I'm glad to be in your team, DS! :D
I'm looking forward to work with you (AND YOU, Mr. mhcarver)! Obviously I seem to be the greenhorn here... :confused:
I'll jump right into work on Wednesday! (RL-issues right now (new job tomorrow and new place to live, actually ;) - Just like civ4-life...)

Stilgar08

Wow! I'm glad to be in your team, DS! :D
I'm looking forward to work with you (AND YOU, Mr. mhcarver)! Obviously I seem to be the greenhorn here... :confused:
I'll jump right into work on Wednesday! (RL-issues right now (new job tomorrow and new place to live, actually ;) - Just like civ4-life...)

Stilgar08

Don't tempt fate...

because of the ongoing investigation into the last elections and my sudden swing from seven votes down to victory, I am going to lean on the safe side and withold my vote on procedures for the moment
-mhcarver

Don't tempt fate...

Sorry, I didn't get that? Could you explain what you mean?

Copied from elections-thread to ensure this gets seen:
Ok!
Unfortunately I just saw the outcome of this election. Recently I've been very busy with RL and therefore couldn't follow the elections (I moved, changed jobs and we had christmas and New Year, BTW). That's the reason why I stated nothin' in the judiciary thread but I believe people recognised Ravensfire and my discussions concerning the tri (Thanks for pointing these out!) as constructive and sharp at the same time! Furthermore you can see from my various posts and memberships about the way I think how a DG should be going and how I would raise my voice in one way or the other! I agree with some stated opinions here that it would have been good to have ravensfire and me as Jing&Jang in one gremium and not as contestants in the elections for it... (Nothing against my noble judiciary-branch-fellows mhcarver and DS, of course! I'm looking forward to work with you!)

I didn't even vote here!! And I just want to state that I have done nothing to manipulate in any way! How could I? If I can be of any help to verify or proof the outcome of this election let me know!

It's a sort of bittersweet win after I read this :sad: . It's ironic that I, who is fighting for democracy and basic-democracy as I understand it is sort of under "a false light" because of the unusual outcome of this vote... :(

I like to thank all the voters who voted for me and I'm more than willing to fulfil the tasks assigned to me!!!! And thanks for the congratulations! :)

Nonetheless if there are doubts about the lawfulness of this vote I'll offer my position again and would run again in a new election! :salute:

I hereby strongly deny any accusations or suspicions against my person!!!

Stilgar08

There have been some changes (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151795) in the Judiciary.

* Who would you like to see be Chief Justice of the Court: DaveShack (result valid)
* Term 1 - Election for Public Defender of the Court: RavensFire (corrected)
* Election for Judge Advocate of the Court: Donsig (corrected)

The first post has been corrected.

On a personal note, in both the PD and JA elections I would have been happy to work with the initial apparent winners, and I'm equally supportive of the new results. All of the Judiciary candidates, including my CJ opponents and the remaining PD/JA candidates not affected by this change, have served the DemoGame with distinction.

I now call upon the newly validated Judiciary to take up the task of reviewing judicial procedures. As stated in my previous post, I had not even reviewed them myself, nor have I had a chance to work on it since then. Let's get this thing started! It looks like we'll have several requests for JR's just as soon as we're ready.

Sorry, I didn't get that? Could you explain what you mean?

Now you know. (that, and the fact that the Judiciary tends to have some of the more... interesting controversies from time to time.)

Yes, now I know! :(

Good luck everybody!

EDIT: I've spoken too soon, continues waiting now...

I hereby formally request a Judiaciary Review of the current situation regarding our Code of Law.

I like to point out that this request of mine is granted by the Constitution itself and therefore independent from the CoL. See:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3546067#post3546104

Do note that Alphawolf can not post as he's banned right now.

Do note that Alphawolf can not post as he's banned right now.

This is getting ridiculous. Our government is being ground to a halt due to one member? Then why don't you guys just unilaterally impose the Flexible government on us and set the start date for Feb 1st?

I am not sure what Blkbird's request was, but tomorrow morning I plan on asking the Judiciary to rule on our President's 7-day absence. As far as I know, the subject does not have to be present for a ruling on that. Or does the ban put the 7-day law on hold as well?

Please let me know if I can stop wasting my time on common sense solutions.

My request was not specific, but of general nature, as the situation is too complex to name a specific subject of the investigation.

But it was not regarding Alphawolf's position as President. I, too, was planning to file that as a seperate request in 12 hours from now, by which time he will be absent for 7 days.

The court isn't quite ready to hear cases just yet, we must first agree on judicial procedures.

I think it would be appropriate to mention up fron that it would be unproductive to hear an absense case before ruling on whether the position actually exists or not. There isn't really any hurry on getting that request submitted.

Please let me know if I can stop wasting my time on common sense solutions.

Common sense is never a waste of time. Neither is patience, Donvan San. The key to patience is doing something else in the mean time.

Here's a thread tha might interest you: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=62057

The court isn't quite ready to hear cases just yet, we must first agree on judicial procedures.

I'm not quite ready to do this yet. I'm still trying to sort this whole election thing out in my head. I'm asking myself if I have a legally valid claim to act as Judge Advocate.

Here's a thread tha might interest you: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=62057

:lol: He did you something - by changing his sig... ;)

This is getting ridiculous. Our government is being ground to a halt due to one member? Then why don't you guys just unilaterally impose the Flexible government on us and set the start date for Feb 1st?

I am not sure what Blkbird's request was, but tomorrow morning I plan on asking the Judiciary to rule on our President's 7-day absence. As far as I know, the subject does not have to be present for a ruling on that. Or does the ban put the 7-day law on hold as well?

Please let me know if I can stop wasting my time on common sense solutions.

Rik's and my hands are tied on that one. We can't leave a member of the demogame unbanned even if he has DLs. We have to ban people regardless of their participation in any forum activity. The forum rules supercede that of the demogame, and thus, DLs required that he be banned.

fellow justices I have a request for judicial review;
my question pertains to article7 a of the code of laws

Section 7 Impeachment

A) Impeachment of the Triumvirate
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring a No Confidence Vote against the Triumvirate as a whole
my question is; must the whole triumvirate be impeached or can the citizens assembly impeach individual members without removing the entire triumvirate?

Wrong thread ?? You are no member of this Judiciary ...

I've read the constitution, the forum rules, Triumvirate v6.2 (aka, the Code of Laws, aka CoL) and the proposed judicial procedures (not necessarily in that order). I've satisfied my own questions as to the validity of the revised election results and I'm ready to begin my duties as Judge Advocate.

A quick check of the proposed judicial procedures didn't turn up any glaring constitutional confllicts. The CoL is mute on judicial procedures though it does say judges can't be impeached. (Who would have thunk I could get elected to a position that can't be impeached?!?) But seriously folks, since there are some very fundamental questions waiting to be brought before the court I suggest we not spend a lot of time trying to hammer out perfect procedures. I would be willing to accept the proposed procedures if we included a clause stating the process to be used to change judicial procedures. I'd rather get the ball rolling and adjust our procedures as we go along if we find it necessary.

If my collegues are of a similar mind it would seem the only question to answer is this:

Should changes to judicial procedures require unanimous consent of the sitting judiciary or is a majority sufficient?

I have (finally) reviewed the judicial procedures and find them sufficient for our current needs, except for the issue already raised by Donsig. I don't have a strong preference on whether a change in judicial procedures should require a majority or a unanimous decision, but I lean towards majority unless someone wants it to be unanimous.

Wrong thread ?? You are no member of this Judiciary ...
mhcarver can still submit JR requests

mhcarver can still submit JR requests

Yes, but not starting with the words "fellow justices" as he did... ;)

Reviewing procedures now...

One note, I suggest that we add the DG group membership requirement to the Citizenship section in the Constitution. As this is the result of an extraordinary situation, this should be simply made. This also falls under the "Rules of CFC trump all" clause.

-- Ravensfire

I'll second the comment by donsig - add a provision for changing the procedures. I think a majority decision is acceptable.

-- Ravensfire

Public Defender Ravensfire, reporting for duty!

I've got this odd feeling that we could have a wild term, but I'm ready! DaveShack, donsig - good to serve with you both again. May our words be guided with wisdom, wrought of justice, and tempered with mercy.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

By a 3-0 decision, the court has approved Judicial Procedures to be used for this term, with an added provision to permit the procedures to be changed.

At present the procedures post has language for changes to procedures needing only a majority of the judiciary. If JA Donsig requests this provision to require a unanimous decision, then it will be updated accordingly.

Court is now in session. All those having business with the court may now enter and state their request.

The court will recognize and consider requests entered prior to this point.

I hereby formally request a Judiaciary Review of the current situation regarding our Code of Law.

I like to point out that this request of mine is granted by the Constitution itself and therefore independent from the CoL. See:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3546067#post3546104

Unfortunately this request is a bit too vague. It wouldn't be fair to other citizens for the court to just start making up questions. Please rephrase your request as one or more clear questions. ;)

Unfortunately this request is a bit too vague. It wouldn't be fair to other citizens for the court to just start making up questions. Please rephrase your request as one or more clear questions. ;)

All right. Then I have - for starters - the following detailed requests.

1. I respectfully ask the Board to confirm that the ruleset known as "Triumvirate 6.2" has been ratified as the Code of Law through this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150285) in a constitutional manner and is therefore effective and binding since its ratification.

2. I further respectfully ask the Board to confirm that the elections for various offices of the Government - including the office of the President - of the first Term has been in accordance with the Constitution and the Code of Laws, and their results updated here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151795) are therefore effective and binding.

umm technically I can use the term fellow justices since I am the CJ of the civ 3 demogame 7 and I've served with everyone accept Donsig before

All right. Then I have - for starters - the following detailed requests.

1. I respectfully ask the Board to confirm that the ruleset known as "Triumvirate 6.2" has been ratified as the Code of Law through this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150285) in a constitutional manner and is therefore effective and binding since its ratification.

2. I further respectfully ask the Board to confirm that the elections for various offices of the Government - including the office of the President - of the first Term has been in accordance with the Constitution and the Code of Laws, and their results updated here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151795) are therefore effective and binding.
In my opinion this JR has no merit, ofcourse they are both valid, they are not breaking a single law, there is no confusing part...

At present the procedures post has language for changes to procedures needing only a majority of the judiciary. If JA Donsig requests this provision to require a unanimous decision, then it will be updated accordingly.

I think majority decision is best so I wholeheartedly accept the judical procedures as posted in this thread.

umm technically I can use the term fellow justices since I am the CJ of the civ 3 demogame 7 and I've served with everyone accept Donsig before

You are quite correct. :)

I've got this odd feeling that we could have a wild term, but I'm ready! DaveShack, donsig - good to serve with you both again. May our words be guided with wisdom, wrought of justice, and tempered with mercy.

Should be a fun time for all. Glad to be part of this team. I expect great things given the amount of judicial experience between us. The only other thing I can add is: Judge Advocate donsig reporting for duty! (When do I get to use the little hammer thingy?)

Blkbird has posted two questions. It is evident that the 2nd question (are the elections valid) depends on the first question being answered, so the first question is docketed and the second one is tabled.

The citizen comment by Black_Hole was noted. To rule that the question has no merit in that fashion would be the equivalent of ruling summarily that the Triumvirate was ratified as the CoL, in favor of the requestor's position. This is a topic which requires the court's full attention, and to rule so quickly would be unfair to those who wish to provide evidence to the contrary.

Civ4DG1JR1

Question: Was the poll for ratification of Triumvirate 6.2 performed legally according to the rules in force at the time the poll was conducted?

The relevant law is the Constitution, Article C. Members of the court and citizens may point out additional relevant laws as needed.

Article C - Decision Making
Power of the People
All decision making power within the Democracy Game is derived from the collective rights of all the citizens.
The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.
By Mandate as evidenced in a citizen's selection to hold office via the elective process.
By Constituency as evidenced by citizen comments in favor of a decision, in a public discussion.
By Opinion Poll in the form of the results of a non-binding poll
By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.
By Initiative in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type
By Recall of an official and selection of a replacement via election or appointment
In the event that two or more such delegations of the Power of the People are in conflict, the following hierarchy shall determine which decision has precedence.
An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.
Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.
Citizen input has precedence over mandate.
If two or more polls or discussions occur on a matter, the last one to complete shall prevail.
Lower forms of law may modify parts of this hierarchy, except for the provision regarding initiative which may not be modified.
A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except
Initiative must always be allowed
No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution. To keep this office from being overrun by discussion, all discussion on this JR will be in a thread dedicated to that purpose.

Link to discussion thread for JR1. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152793)

Esteemed members of the Judiciary,

I would like to present the following amendment to our Code of Laws. I would ask of you to review it and then post a poll for official ratification after the proper time has passed. Here is my proposed amendment:

C) Impeachment of Governors
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring an Impeachment Vote against a Governor.

II. An Impeachment Vote requires a 51/100 (51%) majority to pass.

III. A successful Impeachment Vote shall remove the specific Governor named in it from office.

This proposed amendment would change Sub-Section 7B of our Code of Laws.

Link to Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151129)

EDIT: just realized i needed to post a pretend poll in the discussion thread before asking for Judiciary review of the amendment...sorry.

Esteemed members of the Judiciary,

I would like to present the following amendment to our Code of Laws. I would ask of you to review it and then post a poll for official ratification after the proper time has passed. Here is my proposed amendment:

I think it's obvious that you cannot amend the CoL until it's been confirmed as effective - which is what I've asked for in my JR request. So your request will be pending on Civ4DG1JR1 as well.

I think it's obvious that you cannot amend the CoL until it's been confirmed as effective - which is what I've asked for in my JR request. So your request will be pending on Civ4DG1JR1 as well.

It would be better if a member of the court said this, but it is clearly true.

Nice tactics though, if the court accepted the amendment request, it would be a de facto recognition that the CoL is ratified. :lol:

Edit: BTW, I had expected and planned for a JR on the ratification, days in advance of the official announcement of what really happened. It didn't take a rocket scientist to predict what part of that announcement would be, that Tri wasn't chosen in the preference polls. That's the only thing I could see that would prevent the whole thing from being handled by the Judiciary from the start instead of waiting several days for more investigation.

Question, Who is equla to the defendant's Lawyer in this system, Pubilc Defender, or Judge Advocate( the could both go either way if judged by name)?

There is no defender here, therefore no need for a lawyer to represent him. That is the difference between a JR and a trial. If you will, every citizen can defend the position he believes in here by submitting supporting evidence and arguments.

Question, Who is equla to the defendant's Lawyer in this system, Pubilc Defender, or Judge Advocate( the could both go either way if judged by name)?

The Public Defender represents any citizen in a trial, unless that citizen wishes otherwise.

The Judge Advocate presents the case against the citizen during a trial.

During an investigation, all justices must look at the evidence presented without bias, and determine if there's a reasonable chance an illegal action occurred. If even one Justice feels that way, a trial would commence.

As Blkbird said, in a Judicial Review, there is not need for an "official" representation for a citizen.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Could someone please update the first few posts in this thread? It would be nice if the links were active (at least to the Constitution, as I can understand why you haven't linked to the CoL yet). I also know you've got at least one case under JR right now, and that post is currently empty.

Could someone please update the first few posts in this thread? It would be nice if the links were active (at least to the Constitution, as I can understand why you haven't linked to the CoL yet). I also know you've got at least one case under JR right now, and that post is currently empty.

Done, thanks for bringing it up. :)

If Ravensfire doesn't want to defend him,
I'm not allowed to *NOT* want to defend him. That's my job - to defend all citizens in a trial unless they ask me not to. My personal beliefs and feelings are of no importance - I'm there to safeguard their rights and present a vigorous defense.

does he have the right to ask for someone to step up and volunteer to defend AlphaWolf? Article F, Section 4, subsection b. of the Constitution reads, "The Public Defender will act as council to an accused citizen, if the accused citizen wishes." My humble oppinion is that anyone can defend him in court, but Ravensfire has to do it if no one else will. I'm sure if the court asked, someone would be willing to step up and do it to avoid a conflict of interest. (wink, wink)
If the citizen wants, they can have anyone defend them in a trial.

edit: I don't see anything in the Constitution granting the power of pardon to the President. Of course, the courts don't have to charge AW with anything. Also, being the current President, can he be tried in court at all?
There is no Presidential pardon. Like everyone other citizen, an investigation can be requested on an action they have taken. This investigation can lead to a trial.


Basically, the PD is the default defender for any citizen. If the citizen accused feels that I can't, or won't, do an adequate job, I'm certainly willing to step aside if they have a replacement, or intend to represent themselves. We don't want a situation where someone whats representation, but nobody will do it.

[quote=trundle]1) A thread under the judiciary to deal with a trial (to be created only if one should occur)
2) A more open thread about clarifying whether or not a citizen may choose someone other than the Public Defender to advocate on their behalf or possibly amending the CoL or Constitution to make this allowance

Please note, Ravensfire, that point 2 by no means suggests that I think you may be unable to perform your job. Rather, it is more about a general philosophy I hold that people should be allowed to choose their own counsel.
Nah, I'll just copy everything to the Judicial thread, and answer 'em there. I think point 2 has been adequately covered. For point 1, I refer in part to the Judicial procedures (see the first few posts), and leave the rest there.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Also, (I'm sorry, but being new I'm not sure how normal Judicial process works, so I'll just come out and ask) do you know when the courts will reach a decision? When does the court rule on anything? Once two justices agree, or when all three have agreed that they've heard enough?
Generally, I wait until the discussion dies down, or old points get rehashed, again. I'll then create my opinion and post it in the Judicial thread. On something like this, I'll try to coordinate with the other Justices so that we all post around the same time.

I try to clearly and directly answer the question as posed by the Chief Justice to start the JR. The CJ will then take my response and the other two, and determine the final ruling. If that can't be done, they will request clarification on specific points until we get a clear ruling.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Question
Was the poll for ratification of Triumvirate 6.2 performed legally according to the rules in force at the time the poll was conducted?

Relevant Law
Article C - Decision Making

1. Power of the People
1. All decision making power within the Democracy Game is derived from the collective rights of all the citizens.
2. The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.
* By Mandate as evidenced in a citizen's selection to hold office via the elective process.
* By Constituency as evidenced by citizen comments in favor of a decision, in a public discussion.
* By Opinion Poll in the form of the results of a non-binding poll
* By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.
* By Initiative in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type
* By Recall of an official and selection of a replacement via election or appointment

Citizen Comments
Too many to list! Thanks to all for your comments, discussion and patience on this matter.

Analysis
If I look at this strictly from a "what's fun" perspective, we run with the Triumverate as ratified. We get the game going and don't look back.

If I look at this strictly from a "what's right" perspective, we restart the tweak/ratification process with the Flex. Twice that ruleset was chosen, and each time, fraudulent methods were used to overturn that choice.

My criteria must be, however, "what's within the law". And that's not so easy. The main problem here is that we had significant fraud in several polls that altered the path we took towards ratification. There is no question that the preference of the majority of the people was for a Flexible style ruleset. Indeed, that preference was expressed twice!

There is a long tradition that, when trying to decide between two options, the option not chosen is discarded. Citizens on both sides then work together to make the chosen approach the best possible. The final approval vote is then read "Do you find this option acceptable." It most certainly should not be read "Vote yes if you like this, vote no if you like another approach."

The three polls (the two decision polls and the Ratification poll) were properly created by an official empowered to do so, and prior to the discovery of errors, were univerally accepted. They are all binding polls, under the law. The poll by Rik is an Opinion poll only. While the time and effort put in by the mods is greatly appreciated, once it was accepted that the Judiciary should handle this matter, the poll was posted by a citizen.

The question becomes can we correct the wrong that was done. I don't think we can. We, as citizens did act in good faith that the polls were not ridden with fraud. Up until the odd voting in the election, we had no reason to suspect otherwise. Correcting the fraud would delay the game, and possibly cause citizens to leave in disgust or disappointment. There is no need for that delay. The ratification occurred in good faith, with actions taken subsequent to that took time and effort, and already lead to some disappointed citizens.

There is a mechanism within the Code of Laws that allows for amendment, including a whole-scale replacement of the Code of Laws. This allows for those harmed (the supporters of the Flexible system) to reintroduce their ideas and submit them for approval of the Assembly. This gives the opportunity to correct the situation.

Ruling
The Code of Laws presented for Ratification benefited from significant fraud that otherwise would have let to that option being discarded. The Founding Father posting the Ratification poll for the Code of Laws acted in good faith in posting the poll, and did so correctly. Further, the citizens acted in good faith in voting to ratify the Code of Laws, believing that the option presented them was the one the people genuinely wanted.

The poll to Ratify the Code of Laws as presented to the Assembly is legal and correct.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Congratulations ravensfire. An impressive piece of work both content- and format-weise. :goodjob:

My question is, does this ruling serve as answer to my second question regarding the legality of the goverment offical elections as well, or will that be a seperate ruling?

My question is, does this ruling serve as answer to my second question regarding the legality of the goverment offical elections as well, or will that be a seperate ruling?

The process for ruling will be that each justice posts an opinion, then the Chief Justice posts the official ruling in the form of a voting result.

After that point we can take up additional questions.

On the matter of Ratification of Triumvirate 6.2 as the Code of Laws

Analysis of Evidence
The ratification poll for Triumvirate 6.2 as the Code of Laws was presented to the people with the full faith and belief that it was the choice of the people, at the time that the poll was posted. It followed all required procedures and conventions for a ratification poll. At that point in time, no CoL existed, so the ratification did not need to follow the self-defined amendment procedures contained within Triumvirate 6.2.

There is no doubt that the "where to focus" polls were manipulated in a manner which denied the people their basic right to self-determination of government type. While it is deplorable that the true wishes of the people were subverted by poll manipulations of the "where to focus" polls, it is clear from the evidence that citizens were offered the opportunity to modify the government proposal (which we now know was supported by fradulent means) and did make use of that opportunity. This modification process was undertaken by the officials who were instructed to "focus on Triumvirate", and at that time the citizens accepted that focus and participated in it. Both the officials (with the exception of the alledged perpetrator of the fraud) and the citizens acted in good faith that the results of the "focus" polls represented the people's choice. These mitigating factors do not mean that perpetrating a fraud against the people is acceptable, but they do act in a small way to reduce the impact of the fraud itself.

The CoL presented for ratification was not the same as that originally proposed in the poll asking which government type to focus on. This is not significant to the validity of the ratification itself (the poll does not become invalid due to the change in content) because the poll was self-defining, but it is significant relative to the effects of the "focus" polls. While it would be useless to speculate what the actual result of an additional "focus / preference" poll might have been at that time, it is relevant to note that another such poll could have been held between the updates to Triumvirate 6.2 and the ratification, and that the result [i]might[/b] have been a preference for Triumvirate. While admittedly a very weak argument, this does cast some doubt on how tainted the ratification poll was.

It is also important to note that both focus polls and the ratification poll were all binding polls posted by an official responsible for the area, and they were all touching on the same topic (creation of a Code of Laws). The Constitution, Article C, section 3 states in part "If two or more polls or discussions occur on a matter, the last one to complete shall prevail."
Under this rule, the actual result of the last poll (ratification) prevails over the actual result of the previous polls (focus).

Subsequent to the ratification poll, all the citizens acted as though the true Code of Laws had been ratified. An election cycle was held, and following its conclusion, many of the elected officials proceeded to set up their offices and start discussions on starting the game. Once again, in the absense of information telling them that a problem existed, the people were clearly willing to continue.

At present we have an opinion poll which shows clear support for Triumvirate with approximately a 3:2 majority of citizens. This does not enter into the decision process for my ruling, but it is noted here as an acknowledgement that I am aware of this poll and its outcome which happens to match the ruling for this case.

Citizens provided a huge amount of evidence during the discussion phase. I would like to thank every contributor. The citizen opinions and legal analysis were very helpful in establishing a sound foundation for my analysis of the evidence.

Principle
A ruling on this matter must stem from an objective look at the events as they fit into the framework of the law. It must focus on "what was" and "what is", not on "what might have been" and "what should be". We must not allow hindsight to obsure the past -- its place is in guiding the future. Some citizens wanted the Code of Laws to be set aside in favor of what might have been. In a society governed by law we can't turn back the clock when irreversible events have advanced the current state of affairs beyond that point.

Ruling

The ratification poll for Triumvirate 6.2 as the Code of Laws was performed in accordance with the laws in effect at that time, using the information known at that time. Therefore the poll is valid, even in the face of the acknowledged (in hindsight) fraudulent actions which led to it, and so the Code of Laws was ratified and is in effect.

Question: Was the poll for ratification of Triumvirate 6.2 performed legally according to the rules in force at the time the poll was conducted?

Short answer:

I find that the Triumvirate 6.2 ratification poll was performed legally according to the Constitutional Articles A and C and the CivFanatics forum rules in force at the time the poll was conducted.

Long winded Official Opinion:

The rules in force at the time of the Triumvirate 6.2 ratification poll consisted of the constitution and, as always, the CivFanatics forum rules. Relevant articles of the constitution are A and C. Forum rules applicable include the paragraph headed Multiple accounts are not permitted. The poll in question must be found to be within the rules listed in all three of these sections in order to be considered to be performed legally.

Article A of the constitution gives the authority for the creation of lower forms of law. This article does not specify the exact steps to be taken in passing laws, merely stating that they may be implemented. The poll under review was named Code of Laws Ratification and follows the common practices used in the past for passing such laws. The poll was a valid and proper way of implementing lower forms of law and therefore I find the ratification poll to be legal under Article A.

Article C defines our country’s decision-making process by defining different ways citizens delegate their power to officials. The article further defines a hierarchy for the various delegation methods, which instructs us how to resolve conflicts between them. Of the methods listed only initiatives, referendums and opinion polls are relevant to this judicial review. These are listed in the hierarchy given by Article C: initiatives over rule referendums, which over rule opinion polls. Being a poll, the ratification poll was a valid method defined under Article C. The question is, which method was it? Since to ratify is to approve and sanction formally it was clearly not a (non-binding) opinion poll. Was it a referendum or an initiative? According to Article C the difference between referendums and initiatives is twofold, based both on the duration of the poll’s effects and who posted the poll. Once it is determined which category the ratification poll falls under it must be determined if it was high enough in the hierarchy to supercede any previous (or subsequent) decision methods that were used.

First, there is the force referendums and initiatives carry. The former has force over the current decision only[I] while the latter has [I]force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type. Apparently the intent here was to differentiate between decisions that have temporary duration and those of a more permanent nature though this intent is not clear from the language used. Nor is it clear to me why such a distinction is needed. For these reasons I do not take force into account in this decision.

Second, referendums and initiatives are distinguished by who posted them. The former is an official, binding poll and the latter is in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry. The poll was posted by DaveShack, one of the so called Founding Fathers and a duly elected official responsible or organizing the creation of our country. While it is true that officials (elected or appointed) are also citizens, it seems self-evident they are something different from citizens. My interpretation of Article C is that referendums are polls posted by officials in the course of discharging the duties of their office while initiatives are polls posted by non-office holding citizens or by office holders posting polls having nothing to do with the office held. Note that under this interpretation officials cannot post initiatives for this highest of decision making methods is reserved to the citizens as a last resort against recalcitrant officials. It is my opinion that the ratification poll was a referendum.

There were two prior and one subsequent poll regarding the code of laws and it must be determined if the ratification poll was superceded by any of these. The prior polls we also posted by officials (Founding Fathers). They can be considered either opinion polls or referendums. If considered the former they cannot supercede the ratification poll since opinion polls are lower in the hierarchy. If considered to be referendums the prior polls still cannot supercede the later referendum of the ratification poll. That leaves the subsequent poll that was posted by Rik Meleet. Since Rik Meleet is not an official this poll cannot be considered a referendum. Rik Meleet is a citizen though and therefore the poll could be an initiative. The question asked in that poll is Do we go on with the Triumvirate government or go for Flexible ?? Given the form of the question it is my decision that this poll is a non-binding opinion poll which cannot supercede the earlier referendum that ratified the code of laws.

Had the question been phrased as an explicit repeal of the previously passed referendum I would have been more inclined to see it as an initiative (especially if the poll itself stated it was intended to be an initiative). In that event the next question that would have had to have been addressed was could an initiative over rule the internal amendment procedures of a code of laws.

Finally, the ratification poll must be looked at under the forum rule, which states that multiple accounts are not permitted. As we all know, the two polls prior to the ratification poll were fraudulent in that multiple votes were cast by the same person. We learned that when these illegal votes were subtracted out, the results of the poll changed significantly. This fraud either did not extend to the ratification poll or if it did was not large enough to change the outcome of the ratification poll. Therefore the ratification poll is also valid under forum rules.

While it is true that our Code of Laws would have been much different had the fraud been determined earlier, the plain fact is that it was not determined earlier. The fraud set wheels in motion and the vehicle moved on. While nothing can be done to undo the damage that has been done we, the citizens of [insert name of country here] still have to power to shape our government as we see fit. All we have to do is exercise that power.

I find that the Triumvirate 6.2 ratification poll was performed legally according to the Constitutional Articles A and C and the CivFanatics forum rules in force at the time the poll was conducted.

By a 3-0 decision, the court rules that the Code of Laws ratification (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150285) poll was performed according to the law, and thus the Code of Laws was ratified and is in force.

The court has previously received an absence investigation result, to determine if Alphawolf is absent from the office of President.

There is prima facie evidence that Alphawolf was absent from the forum for more than 7 days, that attempts were made to contact Alphawolf via PM and email, and that more than 48 hours passed without a suitable response.

The court will now vote on declaraing Alphawolf absent and the office of President vacant.

To save on number of posts, the CJ votes yes, Alphawolf is absent and the office of President is vacant.

As the official ruling on JR1 has been published, I repeat my question to the honorable Board: Does this ruling implicitly answers the second question I've asked regarding the legality of the elections of Government Officials of the first Term, or will that question be handled as a seperate JR case?

There is prima facie evidence that Alphawolf was absent from the forum for more than 7 days, that attempts were made to contact Alphawolf via PM and email, and that more than 48 hours passed without a suitable response.

I'd like to provide supporting evidence in form of the listing of all Alphawolf's forum posts:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/search.php?searchid=47480

According to this listing, at current time (2006-01-11 07:45 UTC), Alphawolf's last post is dated 2006-01-01 09:43 UTC. Therefore Alphawolf has clearly been absent for more than 7 days.

The second question previously asked by Blkbird is now in order.


2. I further respectfully ask the Board to confirm that the elections for various offices of the Government - including the office of the President - of the first Term has been in accordance with the Constitution and the Code of Laws, and their results updated here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151795) are therefore effective and binding.

A cursory examination of the elections indicates they were held in accordance with the law, and the moderator-adjusted results (to remove DLs) are valid. This request does not have legal merit due to the obviousness of the answer and the extremely broad scope of the request.

Greekguy has requested (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3549084&postcount=42) a review of a proposed amendment to the Code of Laws.

This request is accepted and entered as docket C4DG1JR2. Justices, please review the proposed law for conflicts with existing law and post your findings.

mhcarver has requested a review of Code of Laws Section 7 A, on impeachment of the triumvirate.


my question is; must the whole triumvirate be impeached or can the citizens assembly impeach individual members without removing the entire triumvirate?

The Code of Laws says this


Section 7 Impeachment

A) Impeachment of the Triumvirate
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring a No Confidence Vote against the Triumvirate as a whole.

II. A No Confidence Vote requires a 6/10 (60%) majority to pass.

III. A successful No Confidence Vote shall remove the entire Triumvirate from office.

B) Impeachment of Cabinet Officials
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring an Impeachment Vote against any Cabinet Official.

II. An Impeachment Vote requires a 51/100 (51%) majority to pass.

III. A successful Impeachment Vote shall remove the specific official named in it from office.

C) Impeachment of Governors
I. Governors may not be Impeached.

D) Impeachment of Judges
I. Judges may not be Impeached..

E) Impeachment Polls
I. Impeachment Polls will have three options Yes, No, and Abstain.

II. Impeachment Poll may be started no earlier that 7 days after a previous one on the same office during the same term.



There is no apparent need for a full review, as the meaning of section 7 is clear. Valid impeachments are listed, anything not listed is not valid, so an impeachment against the Triumvirate affects all three members.

All judicial requests to this point should have been either accepted and added to the docket, or dismissed with a straightforward answer. If anyone believes they have submitted a request which was not answered or docketed, please renew the request by reposting it or posting a pointer to it.

The court will now vote on declaraing Alphawolf absent and the office of President vacant.
The Public Defender votes Yes, Alphawolf should be declared absent and the office of President declared vacant.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

A cursory examination of the elections indicates they were held in accordance with the law, and the moderator-adjusted results (to remove DLs) are valid. This request does not have legal merit due to the obviousness of the answer and the extremely broad scope of the request.

The Public Defender agrees with the Chief Justice - there is no cause for Judicial Review in this situation.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

There is no apparent need for a full review, as the meaning of section 7 is clear. Valid impeachments are listed, anything not listed is not valid, so an impeachment against the Triumvirate affects all three members.

The Public Defender agrees that there is no cause for Judicial Review in this situation.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

The Public Defender finds that this proposal does not conflict with any current law, and should be presented to the Assembly for their consideration.

As a note to new members of the DG, the Judiciary is looking on whether the proposal conflicts with another law. We're not saying it's good or bad, just that it doesn't contradict another law.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

The second question previously asked by Blkbird is now in order...

A cursory examination of the elections indicates they were held in accordance with the law, and the moderator-adjusted results (to remove DLs) are valid. This request does not have legal merit due to the obviousness of the answer and the extremely broad scope of the request.

I agree that there is no need to review the elecitons. In light of the recent up-holding of the CoL ratification polls and the universally recognized precedence of forum rules over demogame rules, it is proper and legal to accept the election results as adjusted by moderators.

The court will now vote on declaraing Alphawolf absent and the office of President vacant.

Alphawolf's last forum post was on Jan. 1, 2006. He made the following post in the absence registry on Dec. 31: I'll be gone from about an hour from now, until Monday morning. If he uses the same calendar as Donovan Zoi there's no telling when we'll hear from him.

It is my opinion (vote) that Alphawolf is absent and the Presidency vacant.

Regarding mhcarver's request for a judicial review:

There is no apparent need for a full review, as the meaning of section 7 is clear. Valid impeachments are listed, anything not listed is not valid, so an impeachment against the Triumvirate affects all three members.

I would like to exercise the right given by our judicial procedures and accept this request for a judicial review.

My next order of judicial business will be C4DG1JR2. I hope to get to that tonight.

Alphawolf's last forum post was on Jan. 1, 2006. He made the following post in the absence registry on Dec. 31: I'll be gone from about an hour from now, until Monday morning. If he uses the same calendar as Donovan Zoi there's no telling when we'll hear from him.

Honorable Justice donsig,

I would like to remind the court that it is improper for its members to alude to parties not pertinentent to the case unless they are reaping huge amounts of praise.

Then again, I am quite certain that the "Monday defense" has no precedent in this court. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Japan

Maybe not, DZ - but it's a darn good shot!

Point to donsig! Turn to Donovan Zoi!

-- Ravensfire

The court has ruled 3-0 that Alphawolf has been absent from the forum for a time period exceeding the maximum allowed by law. The office of President is declared vacant under Code of Laws Section 1.A.IVA.

According to Code of Laws Section 1.A.IVB, the Secretary of State assumes the duties of the Presidency. Greekguy may now open a Presidential office or remain in the current SoS thread, and could open a new Triumvirate office if the current one is not suitable.

Judge Advocate Donsig has requested that the court proceed with a review of mhcarver's request regarding CoL Section 7, on impeachment. This case is added to the docket as C4DG1JR3 with the question:
Does Section 7 of the Code of Laws, Impeachment, require that an impeachment against the Triumvirate affect the President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of War, or may such an impeachment affect a subset or single member of the Triumvirate?
Evidence can be presented in this thread. If needed, we can move the case to its own thread.

Fellow members of the Judiciary,

According to my reading of our Code of Laws (Section 10.B) the judicial review of proposed amendments is the final step in the process before the ratification poll is posted. It is my understanding that the judiciary post the ratification poll and this is done using the proposed, and possibly subsequently edited, poll. It is implied in this that the judiciary should review the poroposed poll as well. Since this is the first proposed amendment to our code of laws it will set a precedent for all future proposed amendments. I feel it is very important to see see process handled in the best way possible. I think the proposed ratification poll can be improved and therefore I ask this JR be temporarily tabled. I will make a few comments in the amendment thread regarding the poll.

donsig
Judge Advocate

Relevant law for C4DG1JR3:

A) Impeachment of the Triumvirate
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring a No Confidence Vote against the Triumvirate as a whole.

II. A No Confidence Vote requires a 6/10 (60%) majority to pass.

III. A successful No Confidence Vote shall remove the entire Triumvirate from office.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Judge Advocate donsig,

I agree that certain aspects of the poll are somewhat lacking, but the text of the law is my primary concern. I fully expect the Chief Justice, when he posts the poll, to fully and clearly explain the choice and to set the poll up correctly.

I feel that, as much as possible, the citizens should focus on the text and meaning of the law, and allow the Judiciary to correct anything around it that was not done correctly.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Judge Advocate donsig,

I agree that certain aspects of the poll are somewhat lacking, but the text of the law is my primary concern. I fully expect the Chief Justice, when he posts the poll, to fully and clearly explain the choice and to set the poll up correctly.

I feel that, as much as possible, the citizens should focus on the text and meaning of the law, and allow the Judiciary to correct anything around it that was not done correctly.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

If the CJ sets up the poll *correctly* then what is the point of requiring a *pretend* poll to be posted in the dicussion thread? It seems to me the onus on providing a properly setup poll rests with the citizen initiating the initiative or the official refering the referendum and NOT the CJ.

If the CJ sets up the poll *correctly* then what is the point of requiring a *pretend* poll to be posted in the dicussion thread? It seems to me the onus on providing a properly setup poll rests with the citizen initiating the initiative or the official refering the referendum and NOT the CJ.

The most important part of the proposed poll (and the only part I look at) is the laws being added/replaced/updated/removed. Everything else is just extra.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

If the CJ sets up the poll *correctly* then what is the point of requiring a *pretend* poll to be posted in the dicussion thread? It seems to me the onus on providing a properly setup poll rests with the citizen initiating the initiative or the official refering the referendum and NOT the CJ.

In previous games this distinction didn't matter, but in this game it does, at least for now. This also hilights a collision between the CoL and the Judicial Procedures. The CoL was written with the distinction between initiative and referendum included in at least one place, and that is the role of the Censor. The idea seems to be that initiatives are polled by the Censor to make it clear that they are deriving from the citizenry. However, as was already pointed out in deliberations for JR1, if the main distinction between an initiative and a referendum is that a referendum is posted by an official responsible for that area and an initiative is not, then having either the Censor (in cases of assembly actions) or a Justice (in cases of amendments) post the poll defeats the idea of having it be an initiative.

I have to agree that the simplest short-term solution is to say in the poll what kind of poll it is meant to be. Things marked informational are opinion polls, things marked as initiatives are as stated, other polls posted by the responsible official are referendums.

There are other ways a poll may become an opinion poll, for example not following polling standards.

We need someone to bring a case on the definitions of polls, or an amendment process to be started to make them easier to understand. Any comments one way or the other on whether members of the Court should instigate such actions?

Edit: On the other hand, Ravensfire's point seems to be that the CJ could state the type of poll in the actual poll using the "correct" definition. This would work and it might be less error-prone, but it wouldn't answer donsig's apparent motivation of teaching people to clarify the poll type on their own. (don't want to put words in his mouth but this is what it seems).

We need someone to bring a case on the definitions of polls, or an amendment process to be started to make them easier to understand. Any comments one way or the other on whether members of the Court should instigate such actions?

I honestly hope we (the Judiciary) does not need to get involved. I really, really hope to see a discussion started on clarifying the poll types. I offer this mental exercise to the citizens - read the Constitution, and tell me exactly how I can tell the difference between an Initiative and a Referendum poll. Read the section, and answer it immediately, then sit back and think for a bit, and answer it again.

If it's confusing, start the discussion.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Edit: On the other hand, Ravensfire's point seems to be that the CJ could state the type of poll in the actual poll using the "correct" definition. This would work and it might be less error-prone, but it wouldn't answer donsig's apparent motivation of teaching people to clarify the poll type on their own. (don't want to put words in his mouth but this is what it seems).

Since the CJ is part of the Judiciary which is responsible for deciding things like is this particular poll binding or non-binding? it does not seem to be a good system to have the CJ responsible for posting said polls. DaveShack as a citizen retains the right to post whatever polls he sees fit but polls he posts in his capacity as CJ are different from those he posts as a citizen.

Don't have time to post about my motivation now - hope to address that later. Rushed for time right now. :)

donsig,

In most cases, we shouldn't. In this case, however, we do post the poll to approve/reject an amendment. The onus is on us to present the proposal in the correct format to the citizens. It should not be on the citizen with the proposal. We ask them to put it in a proposed poll format as a warning to everyone in the discussion that they'd better hurry up! It serves as a verification to us that the citizens have seen the exact language that is presented to us, and has had some time to review it.

As for the determining the type of other polls, I cannot disagree with you. I do not want to have JR after JR asking if poll A is this, or poll B is that. We need clear, plain-spoken statements on how citizens can determine the type of poll. We talked about that during our discussions, so you know my views on that.

EDIT: I think I'm not being clear. For an amendment poll, I feel that the Chief Justice is the responsible party for posting the poll and all language in the poll EXCEPT for the proposed law itself - that should be copied from the proposed poll. For all other polls, I do not want (and will do durn near anything to avoid) the Judiciary involved determining what type of poll it is.

-- Ravensfire

To get back where I left off earlier, the Chief Justice and Public Defender together have hit the nail on the head concerning my motives. Yes, I want to encourage eveyone to post polls that are clear and fair. Bad polls can take alot of the fun out of this game and make more work for the judiciary, two things I'd like to avoid.

I can understand the Public Defender's desire to have the Chief Justice write up amendment polls but I have to disagree with it. The judiciary is responsible for determining the legal status of polls - that's what we did in our first and only ruling so far. Since we may be called upon to judge polls we should not be in the business of writing them. That could put us in the awkward position of judging our own work. With all due respect to DaveShack, I think it is a bad idea to assume the Chief Justice is automatically a good poll writer. If officials were automatically trustworthy and good at performing the duties of their office then we wouldn't need laws, especially those about impeaching officials. I think the formatting of all polls should be worked out in the individual discussion threads where all citizens have a chance to give unput. I further think that where proposed laws are concerned the judicary should post polls exactly as they are written in the appropriate discussion threads.

Proposed change to Judicial Procedures:

This is partially unformatted, details to be worked out prior to approval.

When conducting a review of a proposed law (Constitution or CoL amendment), citizens are requested to use a template found in the Judiciary thread for the mock poll. If upon submission of the JR request, if the mock poll does not contain the major elements of the template, any justice may request the poll be restated in that form. This step is to help ensure the people are presented with an informed choice, while keeping the court's role as impartial reviewers. Ideally, when the official poll is created by the CJ (or another justice as needed), the contents of the mock poll can be copied directly into the official poll without modification.

Suggested template: (credit to PD Ravensfire)
Thread Title: [RULESET] Amendment - [SECTION]

Text:
This is a Citizen's Initiative poll for the amendment of the [RULESET], [SECTION]. The purpose of this amendment is to [PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT].

This is a public poll, and will run for 4 days. For this amendment to pass, a 6/10 majority of voters must vote 'Yes'.

[LINK TO DISCUSSION THREAD]

Do you wish to adopt this amendments?

[OLD LAW]

[NEW LAW]


Poll Question: Do you wish to amend [SECTION] of [RULESET] as follows?

Yes
No
Abstain

Poll settings:
Duration - 4 days
Public Poll - Checked


Definitions:
[RULESET] - Constitution or Code of Laws
[SECTION] - Article/Section being changed
[PURPOSE] - Briefly, why the amendment?
[LINK] - Provide a link to all relevant discussion threads
[OLD LAW] - Formatted text of the old law
[NEW LAW] - Formatted text of the new law

Proposed change to Judicial Procedures:

This is partially unformatted, details to be worked out prior to approval.

What is *to be worked out prior to approval*? The details of the judicial procedure or the details of the various amendments that will use the template? :confused:

As for the template itself there's one typo I see:

Do you wish to adopt this amendments? shoudl be Do you wish to adopt this amendment?, shouldn't it?

I vote to add the template (with above typo corrected) to the judicial procedures.

If the details to be worked out concern the judicial procedures then I would merely add a statement saying this template will be used by the judiciary when posting amendment polls.

To be worked out is the detail of the judicial procedure. It was pretty late at night. :)

The "Impeaching Governors" amendment thread has been updated with a change in substance and a new mock poll has been posted using the suggested template or something substantially similar to it.

Justices, please reconvene on JR2 and post your opinions based on the new content and format.

I find the proposed amendment (as in post #12 of the discussion thread linked to below) to have no conflicts with our constitution or code of laws.

Link to discussion thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151129

The proposed poll in post #13 of the thread listed above is good except it needs the link to the discussion thread. I suggest we make the minor changes needed to bring the poll in line with the judicial template when posting it.

donsig
Judge Advocate

With the typo corrected, the Public Defender agrees with the changes to the court procedures.

I will also wait for the 24 hour discussion period after the latest mock poll to pass before ruling on JR2.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Public Defender's ruling on C4DG1JR2:

This proposal does not conflict with any existing laws, and should be presented to the people for approval.

I note that this approval is based on this proposed poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3574720&postcount=13) with the correction stipulated by donsig (include the discussion link).

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

I find that the proposed amendment does not conflict with existing laws, and may proceed to the polls, agreeing with the stipulation on which poll format to be followed.

By a 3-0 decision the court finds on C4DG1JR2 that the proposed amendment does not conflict with any existing laws.

Fellow citizens,

We've had a JR request - C4DG1JR3 - outstanding for a bit, without any discussion on it. DaveShack, donsig and I have had a very brief discussion about this JR, and want to get more involvement from all of you on this matter.

The last post in this will copy in all relevant law that's been referenced. Please, your comments are valuable and welcome!

From donsig:
I agree we should rule on it. I haven't seen any discussion on this. I'm ready to make my decision. Basically, I do not agree that *what is not written is not valid*. I take the opposite view that *if something isn't specifically prohibited it's valid*. The constitution gives citiens the right to recall an individual official and I do not see the Triumvirate as being exempt from this. A vote of no confidence to remove the whole Tri is a valid law but I do not see that mechanism as precluding the possibility of recalling one of it's members. It is not an either or proposition. If the people want both mechanisms in place in order to retain greater flexibility in overseeing the Triumverate then they have the right to do so since there is no law that specifically says a single member of the Tri cannot be recalled or impeached.

From Ravensfire:
Excellent - I was hoping to see some discussion prior to ruling.

donsig - I think you're looking at the last clause in Article C.1.2 - "By Recall of an official and selection of a replacement via election or appointment".

In that same Article, however, Article C.4 specifically allows "A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except

Initiative must always be allowed
No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution."

The Code of Laws does go on to both specify procedures AND to restrict how the Recall provision may be used. As the Constitution allows this, I think it stands.

From donsig:
Article A.2: No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution.

Article C.1.2: By Recall of an official and selection of a replacement via election or appointment.

I read this to mean citizens reserve the right to recall an official. If such a case arose I would use C.1.2 and A.2 in combination to strike down those parts of the Code of Laws that prohibit impeaching a single official. (Yes, even governors or judiciary members.). If there are to be exceptions made to the constitutional recall process then the changes must be made within the constitution.

As for Article C.1.4 (A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except...) use of the word *restrictions* here must not be interpreted in a way that allows for backdoor amendments to the constitution. A *restriction* is not a *prohibition*. Article C.1.4 allows lower forms of law to specify how and when certain decision types are to be used it does not prevent them from being used at all. Initiatives are an exception because they can never be restricted at all - anyone can post an initiative at any time in any form.

By interpreting *restrictions* as *prohibitions* the result is an internal constitutional conflict. By interpreting *restrictions* to mean [i]rules regarding the proper and valid use of decision types* there is no internal constitutional conflict. Therefore I use the latter interpretation and conclude that lower forms of law cannot prohibit the recall of an official. While the lower law in question is valid for removing the Tri as a whole it, in itself, cannot be used to prevent the recall of one member of the Tri. That would take a constitutional amendment.

Relevant laws:

Constitution
Article A - Forms of Law

Governing rules shall consist of this Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented.
No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution.
Rules which are more specific on a given point may clarify more general points without being contradictory.
Article C - Decision Making

Power of the People
All decision making power within the Democracy Game is derived from the collective rights of all the citizens.
The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.
By Mandate as evidenced in a citizen's selection to hold office via the elective process.
By Constituency as evidenced by citizen comments in favor of a decision, in a public discussion.
By Opinion Poll in the form of the results of a non-binding poll
By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.
By Initiative in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type
By Recall of an official and selection of a replacement via election or appointment
In the event that two or more such delegations of the Power of the People are in conflict, the following hierarchy shall determine which decision has precedence.

An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.
Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.
Citizen input has precedence over mandate.
If two or more polls or discussions occur on a matter, the last one to complete shall prevail.
Lower forms of law may modify parts of this hierarchy, except for the provision regarding initiative which may not be modified.
A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except

Initiative must always be allowed
No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution.


Code of Laws
Section 7 Impeachment

A) Impeachment of the Triumvirate
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring a No Confidence Vote against the Triumvirate as a whole.

II. A No Confidence Vote requires a 6/10 (60%) majority to pass.

III. A successful No Confidence Vote shall remove the entire Triumvirate from office.

What is not in question is how the Code of Laws reads - that's pretty clear. The question is whether or not that particular clause is Constitutional or not.

donsig, I'm not sure there is an internal conflict with the Constitution here. Article A.2 and A.2.a are pretty straightforward - lower law cannot contradict the Constitution. I believe, however, that there is an implied exception to this - "Unless explicitly granted permission by the Constitution."

Looking at Article C.4, there's a great deal of power given to the lower forms of law here. When combined with C.2 ("... in one or more of the following ways ..."), it's pretty clear that the framers intended for the lower bodies of law to determine which of those powers should be used, and how they would be used. The only required form of POtP is the Initiative. This Article gives wide latitude to the Code of Laws, and that must be respected.

The framers of the Code of Laws chose to impliment the Recall power, with regards to the Triumverate, is a very limited manner - it's all or nothing. That is the restriction the CoL chose to go with. The specific rules about how to do that are the procedures.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Both possible answers have some basis, so I'm still looking for additional input, if any other citizens would care to offer an opinion.

I agree with donsig, in particular, what's quoted from him above in #92 and #94.

I do, however, have a different opinion than his regarding Initiatives. The Constitution says "Initiative must always be allowed", that doesn't imply there mustn't be any "procedures and restrictions" defined for Initiatives. I read the words "always allowed" as "no matter what procedures and restrictions lower forms of law adds, they must not remove Iniative as a mean", not as "no matter what procedures and restrictions lower forms of law adds, they don't apply to Initiatives".

I've done some further digging into a few things (slow day for ClearCase - again). Specifically, I was looking for some hint as to the intent of the passages. [url=http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=143091]Here's the discussion thread on PotP.

To be honest, there really wasn't a lot about this particular Article. Some concerns and questions were raised, and some of those were answered. Heck - my own comment in this thread is both rather different from my current viewpoint (purpose of Initiative) and the same (CoL).

There is a comment by DaveShack, in an edit to the first post -
Modified section 4 to require initiative, to accomodate Black_Hole's suggestion to allow lower forms of law to only require Mandate and Initiative. The addition preserve's the people's power if the CoL were to say Mandate is the only required decision making process.
I think the intent is clearly to allow lower laws to pick and choose the specific poll types, requiring only Initiative to be recognized. Having a lower form of law allow a poll in certain circumstances logically follows with that.

EDIT:
What this does highlight (and I've commented on before) is that we need a clear discussion on this article to clarify the various poll types. While the possibility of a new Code of Laws would impact this decision, it would not remove the need for the discussion. We would certainly want to review any new CoL proposal to see if it does clarify the polls types in a mannet that matches the current understanding.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

As a Citizen, I request the Court consider my questions for Judicial Review.

First, right now, who controls the build queue and worker allocation of our Capital city?

Second, we will eventually build a second city, who controls the build queue and worker allocation for that city?

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

Commentary for JR3:

I'll keep this brief for now. This is not the ruling, just comments at this point. The idea of Article C was indeed to allow a CoL which completely eliminated or partially restricted one or more decision types, other than initiative. Making some offices immune to recall, and grouping other offices together falls within the idea of allowing restrictions. If we ruled that the restriction that the whole Triumvirate clause doesn't limit impeaching a single member, then we'd be opening the door to saying the restriction on impeaching the judiciary is also invalid.

This is not a self-serving comment, but it is critical that the Court is free to act without regard to public opinion, else we would have to relinquish our impartiality. Imagine a case of technical violation of the law, but public opinion saying to dismiss the charges. We can't just dismiss charges out of fear of impeachment, we must accept the charges and let the people vote on guilt or innocence. Likewise we can't hang someone out of public opinion, we have to look objectively at the facts and be free to dismiss a case without legal foundation.

If we agree that the Court's impartiality must be protected, then we have to accept that Section 7 is allowed to place restrictions on impeachment. As always I'm open to comments, if anyone sees a flaw in this reasoning please feel free to let us know.

Wow, I said "brief" -- guess not... :lol:

As a Citizen, I request the Court consider my questions for Judicial Review.

First, right now, who controls the build queue and worker allocation of our Capital city?

Second, we will eventually build a second city, who controls the build queue and worker allocation for that city?

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

Hmm, that should be a fairly easy one. The Minister of the Interior is supposed to appoint a Governor of each new city. I wonder why that hasn't happened yet... :rolleyes:

Hmm, that should be a fairly easy one. The Minister of the Interior is supposed to appoint a Governor of each new city. I wonder why that hasn't happened yet... :rolleyes:

You'd think it's an easy one ...

IIIC. The Powers and Duties of the Minister of Interior:1. The Minister of the Interior shall be in control of all workers not assigned to Governors.
2. The Minister of the Interior shall designate any specialization of Cities
3. The Minister of the Interior shall designate how many units of each type to produce.A. The Governors may work it out amongst themselves on which city actually produces what.4. The Minister of the Interior may decide where to build any Citizens Assembly approved Wonder.
5. The Minister of the Interior shall keep track of the resources in our territory and where they are.
6. The Minister of the Interior shall control all Great Engineers.

-- Ravensfire

Here's the other relevant section, emphasis added.

Section 2 The Local Government

A) Governors
I. Governors are the elected officials that run cities or states.IA. The Powers and Duties of the Governors: 1. The Governors may move any workers or garrison units assigned to them anywhere in there city's radius or state boundaries.
2. The Governor shall work with the Minister of the Interior to decide which improvement shall be built.
3. The Designated Player shall act as Governor of any cities build during his play session at the end of which, the office is declared vacant.
4. The first elected governor of a city or state may select the official flag of that city or state. IB. Powers and Duties of the Governors Council: 1. The Governors Council shall not exist until there are at least three Governors. Until then vacant Gubernatorial offices shall filled by an appointment of the Minister of the Interior.
2. The Governors Council shall consist of the Governors of all Cities and States.
3. Any vacant Gubernatorial office will be filled by an appointment of the Governors Council.
4. The Governors Council may veto the actions of any member of the Cabinet with a 6/10 (60%) majority.
5. The Governors Council may end a State of Mobilization prematurely by a 6/10 (60%) vote after at least 7 game turns of Mobilization have passed.

Sheesh - I stand corrected, but that's way, way too convoluted. Alas, that's typical of the Tri.

I withdraw my question!

-- Ravensfire

Sheesh - I stand corrected, but that's way, way too convoluted. Alas, that's typical of the Tri.

I withdraw my question!

-- Ravensfire

Sheesh, thats way untrue. Alas, thats typical of the Flexies!:crazyeye:

Sheesh, thats way untrue. Alas, thats typical of the Flexies!:crazyeye:
*sigh* Now you're just trolling.

EDIT: I don't mind debate, but the name-calling? Please.

-- Ravensfire

In my work on the up-and-coming proposed Flexible Government ruleset, I've been making an effort to integrate the Constitional concepts of Initiative and Referendum into the language of the document. Though I believe Judge Advocate donsig made reference to the definitions in JR1, it was at best indirect and wasn't a major part of the discussion.

This is, then, the question I submit to the Judiciary - what defines a Referendum, and what defines an Initiative? In what ways are they different from one another?

Octavian X, please there is a ongoing discussion within the members of the Judiciary Review Board regarding if and how an Initiative may be regulated and resticted. Justice donsig believes it may not at all, which, if confirmed, would make your proposed polling standard unconstitutional.

Commentary for JR3:

If we ruled that the restriction that the whole Triumvirate clause doesn't limit impeaching a single member, then we'd be opening the door to saying the restriction on impeaching the judiciary is also invalid.

This is not a self-serving comment, but it is critical that the Court is free to act without regard to public opinion, else we would have to relinquish our impartiality. Imagine a case of technical violation of the law, but public opinion saying to dismiss the charges. We can't just dismiss charges out of fear of impeachment, we must accept the charges and let the people vote on guilt or innocence. Likewise we can't hang someone out of public opinion, we have to look objectively at the facts and be free to dismiss a case without legal foundation.

If we agree that the Court's impartiality must be protected, then we have to accept that Section 7 is allowed to place restrictions on impeachment. As always I'm open to comments, if anyone sees a flaw in this reasoning please feel free to let us know.

Speaking for myself I do not need to be protected from the possibility of impeachment to retain my impartiality. I have no qualms about sticking with what I think is right even in the face of an impassioned and outspoken citizenry who happens to disagree with me. So I do not agree that justices must be untouchable in order for us to have an impartial judiciary.

I also do not think being elected to the judiciary makes one infallible nor do I think that giving one absolute job security makes him or her uncorruptible. But that's only me. If the citizens want it that way then fine - but since the constitution specifically allows for the recall of an official they have to make any exceptions clear in the constitution and not in a lower form of law. What prevents citizens from passing various and sundry laws that exempt each and every official from impeachment? By reading only the constitution, how can we make distinctions regarding who can and can't be impeached?

While I agree that lower forms of law can clarify the constitution we must be on guard so as not to allow lower forms of law to alter the fundamental meaning of what is written in the constitution. Those type of changes must be by amending the constitution and not using the code of laws as a back door way of sneaking in changes.

donsig
Judge Advocate

i disagree that the constitution specifically allows the recall of an official.

it does say specifically that:

"The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered."

and among the following ways, recall is listed as one of the ways that the power of the people can be delegated to officials. the list is possible methods. it does not specifically force any of the listed possible methods to be used with the exception of initiative which is enforced later in the text. "A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except
Initiative must always be allowed"

in stating that "Initiative must always be allowed", it suggests that the other methods may be disallowed. it is my opinion that the constitution provides an option for recall, and that it is up to the lower forms of law to allow or restrict that option.

a better question for the courts would be: can there be an initiative for the removal of an official?

and so that i don't make two posts back to back;

i would like to call the courts to investigate the absence of the Minister of the Interior.

and so that there isn't three back to back;

related to the previous request, a few questions.
can a Minister level official hold a deputy position for another Minister?
if a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another position, and they are then advanced to the second Minister position, can they retain both positions?

and finally, for reference: the difference between initiative and referendum - though both are binding polls, initiative is begun by a citizen, referendum is begun by an official (someone who holds an office). an initiative carries more weight then a referendum. a decision by initiative is more lasting in that it continues to effect future decisions of the same type.

Speaking for myself I do not need to be protected from the possibility of impeachment to retain my impartiality. I have no qualms about sticking with what I think is right even in the face of an impassioned and outspoken citizenry who happens to disagree with me. So I do not agree that justices must be untouchable in order for us to have an impartial judiciary.

I feel personally secure as well, but next term we may or may not have the three wise men as justices. The law must be strong enough to handle such a situation.


but since the constitution specifically allows for the recall of an official they have to make any exceptions clear in the constitution and not in a lower form of law. What prevents citizens from passing various and sundry laws that exempt each and every official from impeachment? By reading only the constitution, how can we make distinctions regarding who can and can't be impeached?


I wrote Article A.2 and A.2.a with this argument in mind.


2. No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution.
Rules which are more specific on a given point may clarify more general points without being contradictory
A rule which restricts impeachment (recall) is more specific than a general rule which says recall is allowed. This is a clarification, not a contradiction. Furthermore, Article C.4 specifically allows decision types to remain non-implemented or restricted in the CoL

A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types


While I agree that lower forms of law can clarify the constitution we must be on guard so as not to allow lower forms of law to alter the fundamental meaning of what is written in the constitution. Those type of changes must be by amending the constitution and not using the code of laws as a back door way of sneaking in changes.


I agree on the general point that we don't want backdoor changes -- but this particular issue was anticipated, it's not a backdoor change.

The whole point of this ruleset is that the offices other than the judiciary are not stated in the Constitution -- therefore it cannot specify what offices (other than the judiciary) can and can't be impeached. That must come in the layer which defines the offices themselves.

Speaking for myself I do not need to be protected from the possibility of impeachment to retain my impartiality. I have no qualms about sticking with what I think is right even in the face of an impassioned and outspoken citizenry who happens to disagree with me. So I do not agree that justices must be untouchable in order for us to have an impartial judiciary.

donsig is right that the best Judicial candidates simply won't care. They will do their job to the best of their abilities and worry about the consequences later.

I would be concerned about a group of Citizens so incensed by a ruling that, rather than draft an amendment that would address the matter, tries to remove a Justice.

-- Ravensfire

A rule which restricts impeachment (recall) is more specific than a general rule which says recall is allowed. This is a clarification, not a contradiction. Furthermore, Article C.4 specifically allows decision types to remain non-implemented or restricted in the CoL

As I said earlier, I see a difference between *restriction* and *prohibition*. There is a difference between saying you can't sell alcohol after two am and you can't sell alcohol at all.

The whole point of this ruleset is that the offices other than the judiciary are not stated in the Constitution -- therefore it cannot specify what offices (other than the judiciary) can and can't be impeached. That must come in the layer which defines the offices themselves.

Where in the constitution does it say judiciary members cannot be impeached? Where in the constitution does it say some officials can be impeached and others can't? The constitution merely lists recall as one of the decision types. The real question here is is recall a right of the people or not?

I would like to point out that we can amend the constitution in specific ways without altering the basic usability of the document for later games. Just tack on amendments at the end. When then next game starts throw them out.

It must be kept in mind though that this is an untried constitution and we may want to modify it for the next game. Personally, I think the whole idea of a recall is abominable. Elected officials should not be subjected to the whims of citizens' passions. Sure, it should be possible to remove officials but only if they do something that breaks the rules. In other words, only through a trial conducted by the judiciary. If an official breaks no rules he or she should be allowed to keep office despite the public's current feelings. The people can always vote the official out next time.

But it is not what I think that counts here. What counts is what is written in the constitution, and lower laws as long as they do not conflict with the constitution. Bear in mind that we arew dealing with a code of laws that was passed without any judicial review. We cannot merely blindly accept it as constitutional.

I agree on the general point that we don't want backdoor changes -- but this particular issue was anticipated, it's not a backdoor change.

It is of course difficult to argue intent with the actual writer. I don't think intent comes into play here. There is no internal constitutional conflict so we don't have to go back and ask what the intent was behind the conflicting articles. We must adhere to what is actually written. Recalls are written in and I see them as a right guaranteed to the people by the constitution which a lower form of law may not prohibit.

a better question for the courts would be: can there be an initiative for the removal of an official?

A very insightful question! Again, looking at the wording of the constitution, we'd have to conclude that an initiative to remove an official would be legal.

A very insightful question! Again, looking at the wording of the constitution, we'd have to conclude that an initiative to remove an official would be legal.

I quite agree - it is a good question.

Actually, I would consider Recall to be an Initiative poll - it's started by the citizens, after all!

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

As a note to my fellow Justices, I started a discussion on Article C of the Constitution - Decision Making.

Link to thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=154973).

We've struggled a bit during some of our discussion over how to decide between different polls types, and the intention behind them. Hopefully, this discussion will produce the clarity that we're desiring without a Judicial Review needed.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

i would like to call the courts to investigate the absence of the Minister of the Interior.



So noted and added to the docket as C4DG1AI2. I'll check out whether there have been any updates from the Minister since this request and send the PM/email as required.


related to the previous request, a few questions.
can a Minister level official hold a deputy position for another Minister?
if a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another position, and they are then advanced to the second Minister position, can they retain both positions?


This question is accepted as C4DG1JR4. I'm pressed for time at the moment and the Justices need to prepare our rulings on JR3, so one of us will post the relevant law sections when we get a spare moment.

Question:
can a Minister level official hold a deputy position for another Minister?
if a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another position, and they are then advanced to the second Minister position, can they retain both positions?

Relevant law:
Section 8 Limit to Running and Holding Offices

A) Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B) Limits to Holding Offices.
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
IA. An exception to this is a member of the Triumvirate assuming the duties and powers of a vacant Triumvirate office.
II. A member of the Cabinet may hold one other Cabinet office, Gubernatorial office or a Deputy position.

III. A Governor may hold one other Gubernatorial office, a Cabinet office, or a Deputy position.

IV. A citizen with no other positions may hold two Deputy positions.

V. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.

mhcarver has come before the Court asking:
must the whole triumvirate be impeached or can the citizens assembly impeach individual members without removing the entire triumvirate?

Relevant Law
Article C of the Constitution
Section 7 of the Code of Laws

Citizen Comments
Thanks to Blkbird and von Clausewitz, and the members of the Judiciary for an excellent debate. I would like to specifically thank donsig for requesting this review on this important topic.

Analysis
The heart of this Judicial Review lies with Article C of the Constitution. On it's face, Section 7 of the Code of Laws is quite clear. The question thus becomes, it Section 7 constitutional? Can this section restrict the right of Recall granted in Article C of the Constitution?

Our Constitution is designed to be a broad framework - covering the core areas and basic rights, while allowing lower forms of law to provide more detail and the actual government structure. This can cause conflict, as happens here. Article 2.A of the Constitution states "No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution." Article C has several relevant clauses that introduce some internal conflict.

C.1.2 says "The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered." The implication is that Power resides solely with the People unless they chose to delegate it to an official. Article C.1.2 does just that in Mandate, by explicitly granted officials some Power. The other defined methods do not directly delegate Power.

C.4 though speaks directly to the point "A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except 1) Initiative must always be allowed 2) No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution."

C.4 specifically grants to lower forms of law the ability to "specify procedures and restrictions". This grant is limited in that Initiatives must always be allowed and sets a maximum decision standard. The first limitation "Initiative must always be allowed" gives guidance to what the Framers intended with this clause.

In reviewing the discussion threads creating the Constitution, further guidance can also be found in comments by DaveShack (the primary author) "...to allow lower forms of law to only require Mandate and Initiative. The addition preserve's the people's power if the CoL were to say Mandate is the only required decision making process." The intent is quite clear - lower forms of law can even disregard some forms of decision making, although how that would be actually be done from a practical sense is rather mind-boggling.

Given this intent, it follows that the "specify procedures and restrictions" phrase allows lower forms of laws to explain the process of using the decision types and restricting in a reasonable manner how they are used. Unreasonable restrictions, such as requiring polls to be open 10 days to be binding, but allowing no more than 7 days between game sessions, cannot be allowed to stand.

I find that the Constitution can limit itself, allowing Article C.4 to override the general protection granted by Article 2.A. The procedures and restrictions found in lower law are valid, so long as they are reasonable.

In this case, Section 7 of the Code of Laws requires that the Triumverate be impeached as a whole. I do not find that restriction to be unreasonable. Thus, I find that Section 7 of the Code of Laws is constitutional and valid. Accordingly, the members of the Triumverate can only be impeached as a group, and may not be impeached individually.

Ruling
A successful Impeachment of the Triumverate will render all three offices Vacant, removing the citizens from those offices. The members may not be impeached individually.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

The question before the judiciary is straightforward: must the whole triumvirate be impeached or can the citizens assembly impeach individual members without removing the entire triumvirate?

Short answer:

Yes, individual members of the triumvirate may be impeached without removing the entire triumvirate.

Long-winded legal answer:

Section 7.A of our Code of Laws allows the impeachment of the Triumvirate as a whole via a No Confidence Vote. The No Confidence Vote is a legal and constitutional method for removing the triumvirate as a whole. Removing individual triumvirate members is not explicitly addressed in either the code of laws or constitution. Nowhere in the code of laws or constitution is the removal of the whole triumvirate explicitly made the exclusive means of removing triumvirate members from office, nor is the removal of individual triumvirate members explicitly prohibited in either document. Given this and the fact that it is possible for both mechanisms (removal of the tri as a whole and removal of individual tri members) to exist within our legal system I find it difficult to answer the question before us in the negative.

Before finalizing an affirmative answer, implicit references to the question should be looked for. The only implicit reference I can find is in Article C of our constitution. Listed in clause C.1.2 are the various constitutionally recognized decision types. Among these is the recall of an official. This implies that citizens retain the right to remove specific individuals from office.

Article C.4 says (in part) a lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types. In my opinion this clause cannot be used to justify the view that the No Confidence Vote of the code of laws was intended to exclude the impeachment of individual triumvirate members. Article C.4 uses the term specify … restrictions on implementing which does not mean prohibits the use of. In short, lower laws may define when and how the decision types are to be put into play. A lower law cannot totally prohibit the use of a recall against an individual official.

In conclusion, not only do our laws not explicitly forbid the recall or impeachment of an individual triumvirate member, our constitution implies citizens retain the right to recall or impeach any official. Therefore the answer to the question before us is yes, individual members of the triumvirate may be impeached without removing the entire triumvirate.

donsig
Judge Advocate

Question: must the whole triumvirate be impeached or can the citizens assembly impeach individual members without removing the entire triumvirate?

Short answer: The whole triumvirate must be impeached as a whole. Individual impeachments are not permitted.

Legal reasoning:

Article A.2.a allows a lower law which is more specific on a point clarify an Article which is generally applicable to the same point.
Article A.2.a Rules which are more specific on a given point may clarify more general points without being contradictory.
Article C defines Recall as one of the citizen actions which may be permitted by a lower law, but C.4 permits a lower law to restrict the implementation of a decision type. This along with A.2.a allows the CoL to restrict, or limit, the implementation of recall. No limit is placed on such a restriction, except that it may not require more votes than an amendment to the Constitution.

Given that the CoL may implement and restrict Recall, I turn to the section on Impeachment.

Section 7 Impeachment

A) Impeachment of the Triumvirate
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring a No Confidence Vote against the Triumvirate as a whole.

II. A No Confidence Vote requires a 6/10 (60%) majority to pass.

III. A successful No Confidence Vote shall remove the entire Triumvirate from office.

B) Impeachment of Cabinet Officials
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring an Impeachment Vote against any Cabinet Official.

II. An Impeachment Vote requires a 51/100 (51%) majority to pass.

III. A successful Impeachment Vote shall remove the specific official named in it from office.

C) Impeachment of Governors
I. Governors may not be Impeached.

D) Impeachment of Judges
I. Judges may not be Impeached..

E) Impeachment Polls
I. Impeachment Polls will have three options Yes, No, and Abstain.

II. Impeachment Poll may be started no earlier that 7 days after a previous one on the same office during the same term.
This section includes a comprehensive list of every type of elected official position. Each type of position has a specification of what impeachment is allowed for that office:
Triumvirate -- impeachment as a whole
Cabinet -- impeachment as individuals
Governors -- no impeachment
Justices -- no impeachment

Because this list is complete, there is no room to interpret it that additional, conflicting kinds of impeachment are allowed. Since the Triumvirate is listed, the only method of impeaching the Triumvirate is as a whole, as specified in the CoL.

The court has ruled 2-1 that impeachment of the Triumvirate can only result in all three offices being declared vacant, and that impeachment of an individual member of the Triumvirate is not allowed.

The required time period of 48 hours has passed without a response from Aythanaeus. It is now time for the Court to vote on the question:

Shall Aythanaeus be declared absent from the game, and the post of Minister of the Interior declared vacant?

The CJ votes yes.

Shall Aythanaeus be declared absent from the game, and the post of Minister of the Interior declared vacant?

The Public Defender votes Yes

-- Ravensfire

Shall Aythanaeus be declared absent from the game, and the post of Minister of the Interior declared vacant?

Aythanaeus has not posted since Jan. 6, '06. That was in the absence registry and listed a return of Jan 8. It is now Jan 22.

The JA votes yes.

The court has ruled 3-0 that Aythanaeus is absent from the game, and the office of Minister of the Interior is vacant. The deputy minister Nomad Bryce assumes the role of MoI.

Interesting rulings for C4dg1jr3.

Correct me of course if I am wrong in the following statements.

The Constitution only requires Initiative as a decision making method.
The Constitution grants lower forms of law to grant or restrict the other methods that are listed in the Constitution.

All of these would actually be considered to require an Initiative decision any way, so in a sense those don't matter much for my question. With the exception of the following decisions:
Declare War/Make Peace/Alliance,
change civics,
to begin construction on a Great Wonder/National Wonder/Project,
a change in Taxes greater that 10% more than once every 10 turns,
and where to build new cities.

Does the current Code of Laws allow a method of decision other then Initaitive or Mandate? Would methods other then Initiative or Mandate be able to be enforced?

Just in case the Courts rule in favor of common sense, which they have to this point, I have another question.

What measures could a citizen take to prevent a Mandate from being carried out while either Initiative discussion or actual polling is under way?

Interesting rulings for C4dg1jr3.

Correct me of course if I am wrong in the following statements.

The Constitution only requires Initiative as a decision making method.
The Constitution grants lower forms of law to grant or restrict the other methods that are listed in the Constitution.

The constitution does not require any decisions be made at all. IMHO (which is not necessarily shared by my brethren on the bench) the constitution does not give lower laws the power of *life and death* over decision types. I have already (I think unsucessfully) tried pointing out the difference between *restricting* and *prohibiting*. The constitution specifically prohibits lower laws from restricting initiatives.

Does the current Code of Laws allow a method of decision other then Initaitive or Mandate? Would methods other then Initiative or Mandate be able to be enforced?

The constitution allows for initiatives, referendums, mandates, opinion polls and recalls. The code of laws cannot take away what the constitution grants. The code of laws could define more decision types to fit within the framework already laid out in the constitution.

What measures could a citizen take to prevent a Mandate from being carried out while either Initiative discussion or actual polling is under way?

Citizens would have to lobby the official or officials who have the authority to carry out the action or actions in question. There is no mechanism in place for the judiciary to step into in such cases. I don't believe there ever has been such a mechanism in the demogames. I have suggested from time to time that the judiciary be allowed to oder *stays* or *injunctions* but the idea never went anywhere. In order to be effective the judiciary would have to be empowered to post instructions in the instruction thread. Another thing that could be done is to amend the constitution or add a lower law. A law saying mandates must be put on hold if there is an outstanding initiative poll on the same subject seems (on the face of it) to be constitutional. It also seems to be a proper and valid use of a lower law clarifying and restricting a decision type.

Legal disclaimer: The above are my personal opinions and should not be considered an official judicial review. :D

Is there any discussion on JR4 regarding multiple positions?

Question:
can a Minister level official hold a deputy position for another Minister?
if a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another position, and they are then advanced to the second Minister position, can they retain both positions?

Relevant law:
Section 8 Limit to Running and Holding Offices

A) Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B) Limits to Holding Offices.
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
IA. An exception to this is a member of the Triumvirate assuming the duties and powers of a vacant Triumvirate office.
II. A member of the Cabinet may hold one other Cabinet office, Gubernatorial office or a Deputy position.

III. A Governor may hold one other Gubernatorial office, a Cabinet office, or a Deputy position.

IV. A citizen with no other positions may hold two Deputy positions.

V. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.

My reply is also opinion outside any judicial review. :)

The constitution does not require any decisions be made at all. IMHO (which is not necessarily shared by my brethren on the bench) the constitution does not give lower laws the power of *life and death* over decision types. I have already (I think unsucessfully) tried pointing out the difference between *restricting* and *prohibiting*. The constitution specifically prohibits lower laws from restricting initiatives.


Your point on restricting vs prohibiting was understood, we just disagreed on how a specific instance should be evaluated. I think the CoL can restrict initiatives, by requiring a process to be followed for example. There are some definition problems in the Constitution, and I'm starting to remember the distinctions.

Initiative is mostly about in-game decisions. The previous case was about recalls, which are out of game decisions. What I meant to say was that initiative must always be allowed for in-game decisions -- but now we have to live with interpreting that until a concensus is reached on changing it.


The constitution allows for initiatives, referendums, mandates, opinion polls and recalls. The code of laws cannot take away what the constitution grants. The code of laws could define more decision types to fit within the framework already laid out in the constitution.

Or said another way, if the CoL doesn't say anything about a subject, then the Constitution clearly remains in effect.


Citizens would have to lobby the official or officials who have the authority to carry out the action or actions in question.


Some might argue that merely having a discussion, anywhere, on a topic within a official's responsibility represents constituency, which by the definition in the Constitution overrules mandate. An official who completely ignores public comments in any form risks being subjected to a citizen's complaint.

Edited: added "completely".

von Clauswitz,

I agree with my fellow justice, donsig, on your questions. I've got a few thoughts to add that might also help. I'm not sure, however, if you intend these questions to be requests for a Judicial Review on them. I'm taking them, as I think donsig did, to be more general questions. If you are looking for a JR on them, please let us know!

So you know, only a ruling on a JR actually has any standing for future interpretations - my response here is my personal viewpoint, nothing else.

Does the current Code of Laws allow a method of decision other then Initaitive or Mandate? Would methods other then Initiative or Mandate be able to be enforced? As Judge Advocate donsig points out, the Constitution defines those decision types, so they exist. If you look at those decision types, they realistically are the core types - it would be enormously difficult to eliminate those types. By law, those types are recognized, and can be enforced.
What measures could a citizen take to prevent a Mandate from being carried out while either Initiative discussion or actual polling is under way?To be blunt, there isn't one, and there probably shouldn't be a blanket prohibition.

Let's say you're a Governor, and it's a two days before the next game session. You were elected just a week ago on a platform of building X in the province. Your opponent objects, and starts a discussion on the matter.

There's now a discussion that's going with active debate on both sides, but an apparent 60% majority opposed to X in the discussion. That's far from a constituency. Should an active discussion be able to block a mandate? If so, what would you, as the Governor, need to do here?

Now it's a day before the next session. Same scenario, except an Initiative poll just went up about the matter. Early results are mixed, but there's that 60% majority against your wishes. The poll, however, won't close for 3 days - 2 days after the next game session. Again, as the Governor, what would you do? The poll hasn't closed, so it can't be called official. It's still early, and results will change often (see the Restart poll - the early push was firmly No, it's now much closer).

I think that leaders should be aware of ongoing discussions and polls, but they can only base their decisions on completed decisions.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen

My reply is also opinion outside any judicial review. :)
Or said another way, if the CoL doesn't say anything about a subject, then the Constitution clearly remains in effect.

Well, the point I've been trying to make is the constitution clearly remains in effect no matter what is said in the code of laws. If there is a conflict between what is writtenin the CoL and what is written in the constitution then what is written in the CoL is disregarded in favor of what is written in the constitution.

There are some definition problems in the Constitution, and I'm starting to remember the distinctions.

We can only go by what is actually written.

My JR4 ruling will be up in a few hours - last chance for comments!

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

I have a question about the governorships...

1 - In the elections, it says, "Governor of Boaring Wallow", but in the Constitution, it says governors control cities or states (I prefer provinces, so I'll use that term).

2 - Provincial boundries. Yep, the age old question, and I haven't seen it mentioned in the constitution. Can we get something on that? Civ4 does have fewer cities than Civ3 in a normal game (atleast 3 times less).

Cheiftess, to my knowledge, if three(or more) cities become a state, there is a stae govna who may appoint city mayors, and the provincal boundaries would be the combine city borders:)

von_Clausewitz came before the court with the following question:
can a Minister level official hold a deputy position for another Minister?
if a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another position, and they are then advanced to the second Minister position, can they retain both positions?

Citizen comments
None

Relevant Law

Constitution: None

Code of Laws:
Section 8 Limit to Running and Holding Offices

A) Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B) Limits to Holding Offices.
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.

IA. An exception to this is a member of the Triumvirate assuming the duties and powers of a vacant Triumvirate office.

II. A member of the Cabinet may hold one other Cabinet office, Gubernatorial office or a Deputy position.

III. A Governor may hold one other Gubernatorial office, a Cabinet office, or a Deputy position.

IV. A citizen with no other positions may hold two Deputy positions.

V. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.

Analysis
As a note, all Ministers referenced in the Code of laws are members of the Cabinet. In addition, the Code of Laws clearly states that "The Cabinet Officials will be any office that is not included as part of the Triumvirate, the Judiciary, a Gubernatorial office or the Designated Player." (CoL 1.B.I.IB).

This very easily answers the question presented. In our Code of Laws, the only officials that appear to have Deputies are the members of the Cabinet and Governors. Each position category has a different method to fill the vacancy.

To the question at hand, 8.B.III clearly answers this "... or a Deputy position."

The second part of the questions is also answered in this section. 8.B.II states "A member of the Cabinet may hold one other Cabinet office ..."

Ruling
Yes, a member of the Cabinet may serve as the Deputy for another Cabinet level office.

Yes, a citizen may hold two Cabinet level positions simultaneously.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Questions:
can a Minister level official hold a deputy position for another Minister?
if a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another position, and they are then advanced to the second Minister position, can they retain both positions?Relevant Law (thanks to Ravensfire)

Constitution: None

Code of Laws:
Section 8 Limit to Running and Holding Offices

A) Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B) Limits to Holding Offices.
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.

IA. An exception to this is a member of the Triumvirate assuming the duties and powers of a vacant Triumvirate office.

II. A member of the Cabinet may hold one other Cabinet office, Gubernatorial office or a Deputy position.

III. A Governor may hold one other Gubernatorial office, a Cabinet office, or a Deputy position.

IV. A citizen with no other positions may hold two Deputy positions.

V. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.

Ruling

As to question 1, yes, a cabinet official may be a deputy of another cabinet office.

As to question 2, yes, a citizen may hold two cabinet offices.

I have a question about the governorships...

1 - In the elections, it says, "Governor of Boaring Wallow", but in the Constitution, it says governors control cities or states (I prefer provinces, so I'll use that term).

2 - Provincial boundries. Yep, the age old question, and I haven't seen it mentioned in the constitution. Can we get something on that? Civ4 does have fewer cities than Civ3 in a normal game (atleast 3 times less).
The relevant law is CoL Section 2:
Section 2 The Local Government

A) Governors
I. Governors are the elected officials that run cities or states.IA. The Powers and Duties of the Governors:1. The Governors may move any workers or garrison units assigned to them anywhere in there city's radius or state boundaries.
2. The Governor shall work with the Minister of the Interior to decide which improvement shall be built.
3. The Designated Player shall act as Governor of any cities build during his play session at the end of which, the office is declared vacant.
4. The first elected governor of a city or state may select the official flag of that city or state.IB. Powers and Duties of the Governors Council:1. The Governors Council shall not exist until there are at least three Governors. Until then vacant Gubernatorial offices shall filled by an appointment of the Minister of the Interior.
2. The Governors Council shall consist of the Governors of all Cities and States.
3. Any vacant Gubernatorial office will be filled by an appointment of the Governors Council.
4. The Governors Council may veto the actions of any member of the Cabinet with a 6/10 (60%) majority.
5. The Governors Council may end a State of Mobilization prematurely by a 6/10 (60%) vote after at least 7 game turns of Mobilization have passed.IC. States1. No states may be created until our Civilization owns at least five cites.
2. A minimum of 3 cities must exist in a proposed state at the time of its creation.
3. The Creation of a state requires a 6/10 (60%) majority of both the Citizens Assembly and the Governors Council.II. StatesIIA. States are groups of cities run by a single Governor.
IIB. Cities within states do not have their own Governor.1. Governors of States may designate a civil government led by a Mayor in cities under their control.A. Mayors may be appointed or elected in a special election depending on the wish of the Governor of the State. The way of choosing Mayors does not need to be the same for all Cities in a given State.2. A Governor of a State chooses how many cities if any will have Mayors in a given term.IIC. The Capital of [Name of our Nation Here] will never be a part of a state.
I don't see a question being asked in #1 -- yes, the election thread says Governor of Boaring Wallow, and the CoL does say governors control cities or states.

On question #2, on initial review, there does not appear to be any law which specifies who is responsible for Provincial (State) borders. CoL 2.A.IC.3 says "The Creation of a state requires a 6/10 (60%) majority of both the Citizens Assembly and the Governors Council." but does not give responsibility for leading that effort. On the surface this would seem to imply that CoL Section 1.B.IIA.5 takes effect giving the responsibility to the President "The President has all powers not expressly given to another official and not retained by the Citizens Assembly."

If this is a satisfactory answer to my fellow justices and to Chieftess as the originator, then we can avoid needing a formal JR on this question.

Question:
can a Minister level official hold a deputy position for another Minister?
if a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another position, and they are then advanced to the second Minister position, can they retain both positions?

Short answers: Yes, a Minister level official can hold a deputy position for another minister, and yes, a minister who is also a deputy for another minister can retain his or her original ministry upon advancement.

Legal reasoning:

The constitution in mute on this entire issue so we must turn to the Code of Laws for our answer.

Sections 1.B.I.IB and 1.B.III.IIIA list Cabinet Officials, many with the specific title of Minister therefore a *minister level official* is the same as a *Cabinet Official*.

Section 3.B.I.IB provides for cabinet members to have deputies.

Section 8.B.II specifically says A member of the Cabinet may hold one other Cabinet office, Gubernatorial office or a Deputy position. This clearly states that a minister level official can hold one deputy position or another cabinet position. Since 8.A.I prohibits citizens from running in more than one election per cycle, it is a reasonable assumption that 8.B.II was written specifically to allow a minister who is also a deputy for another minister to retain the original ministry if promoted to a second ministry.

Therefore the answer is yes a minster can be a deputy for another minister and yes a deputy promoted to a ministerial level office can retain another ministry position.

donsig
Judge Advocate

The court has ruled unanimously on the following questions for C4DG1JR4.

Ruling

As to question 1, yes, a cabinet official may be a deputy of another cabinet office.

As to question 2, yes, a citizen may hold two cabinet offices.

I have a proposed amendment to the Code of Laws I would like to bring before the Judiciary. It can be located at this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=155166). It changes how vacancies are filled in the government, and limits the number of government positions one person may hold. Post #30 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3629153&postcount=30) is a mock poll. The only response so far deals with minor changes, mostly grammatical, that have been changed. I have left out the ( [ ) before the links to the discussion threads to make it easier for a Justice to copy and paste the thread.

I would like to thank the Justices before hand for looking at this bill. I would also like to thank the Justices that helped me craft the bill.

GeorgeOP's request for Judicial Review of a proposed amendment on multiple offices and vacancies (located here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=155166)) is accepted and placed on the docket as C4DG1JR5.

After review, the Public Defender finds the proposal not to conflict with existing laws. The specific post linked does not include the sections that should be removed, although those sections are clearly listed in the discussion thread shortly before the proposed poll.

The Public Defender recommends that the Chief Justice include mention of the sections of the Code of Laws to be removed when posting the official poll.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

The proposed amendment to the code of laws does not conflict with our constitution or non-amended / deleted sections of the code of laws.

The mock poll is unclear as to the sections of the code of laws being deleted and it is suggested the Chief Justice rectify this when posting the actual ratification poll.

donsig
Judge Advocate

The proposed law does not conflict with the Constitution or introduce internal conflicts within the CoL given the sections being replaced are deleted.

I agree with the recommendations of the JA and PD to be very careful when posting the ratification poll to make it clear what is being deleted and moved to new sections. :)

The poll will be posted shortly. (Just needs to be before 5pm my time tomorrow in order for it to still be term 1) :cool:

It is with the utmost thanks to my fellow members of the bench, Chief Justice DaveShack and Judge Advocate donsig, that I bid a farewell to Term 1.

We covered some dramatic events and help get the Judiciary for the Civ 4 DG off to a great start. We set the standard high - nice job! To the citizens that helped us in our rulings - my deepest thanks. Your views and insights are desired and valuable, keep it up!

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Likewise I would like to thank my fellow Justices Ravensfire and Donsig for a productive term, handled with dignity and principle. :goodjob:

It's been real. It's been fun. It's been real fun. Thanks CJ DaveShack and PD Ravensfire. I think we did all right.

Note: I am not a Civfanatics staff member and that thing on the bottom of my avatar is not a badge.