Term 3 Judiciary [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

Chillaxation

Mar 15, 2006, 08:44 PM

Hon Chief Justice -

I would like you to consider the following unclear section of the Code for Judicial Review.

I. A Vacancy occurs when an office is empty due to the office holder resigning, judicial action, impeachment, if no citizen ran for election for that office or when a new office is created.
II. Triumvirate Vacancies
IIA. If there is a Vacancy in the Triumvirate, the President shall nominate a citizen to that office. If the Presidency is Vacant, the Secretary of State, or Secretary of War if the Secretary of State is also Vacant, shall nominate a citizen to that office. The citizen must accept the nomination prior any further steps.
IIB. The Judiciary shall confirm the appointment. If confirmed, the citizen takes office immediately. If not confirmed, a different citizen must be nominated.
IIC. The nominee may be any citizen that does not currently hold a Triumvirate or Judicial position. If the nominee holds another office, they must resign immediately upon confirmation.
IID. This appointment may not be challenged by a confirmation poll.
III. Cabinet Vacancies
IIIA. The President must offer the position to the Deputy, if there is one.
IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.
IIIC. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll.
IV. Governor Vacancies
IVA. The Governors Council must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Council within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Council may appoint any citizen to the office.
IVB. If there is no Governors Council, the Minister of Interior must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Minister of Interior within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Minister of Interior may appoint any citizen to the office.
V. Judicial Vacancies
VA. The President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.
VB. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll.
VI. All vacancy appointments which are subject to a confirmation poll are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority.
VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should <citizen name> serve as <office>?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll should last for 48 hours. If a majority of citizens who vote, excluding abstain, vote no, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term.
VIB. A Citizen who holds office may apply for a new office before the 72 hour waiting period provided they write in their application that they will resign from their current office. That citizen does not have to resign until the provisional period passes.
VII. 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.

While there is a clear requirement that appointments be provisional until a "the time for the confirmation poll has passed," that time period is not set for each type of vacancy. For example, how long should a Chief Justice appointment from the presidency be considered provisional before it passes into full effect? I imagine that it is the same moment at which calls for a confirmation poll are no longer valid, but it would be good to have a clear procedure, in my opinion.

Thank you.

Chillaxation

Curufinwe

Mar 15, 2006, 09:18 PM

I am Chief Justice, whether or not Nobody's appointment was legal. In opening th;is thread I used the same process that Donsig did for the last one, being of course, undereducated, and so going to those more experienced then myself. If that was against procedures, then it will be dutifully rectified as soon as I am shown what my mistake was.

Now, Nobody has refused the position, and, conditionally resigned. Conditional resignations are not uncommon, many leftist protest parties would have their elected representatives sign letters of resignation that the party could use to recall them at any time, provided certain criteria were met. Therefore, regardless of whether or not Nobody's appointment was legal, I remain Chief Justice. I would like to thank Nobody for his selfless act in the name of continuing a consensus on how to move forward.

I will deal with the questions regarding the three cases when I am told what I did wrong and how to fix that, and then move on. I see no reason, as Nobody agrees, to stand aside, and, therefore, will not do so, as he is, under no circumstances, currently the Chief Justice, the question is whether he ever was.

In regards to the final matter brought before us, I would ask that you please do not overload us, though i do know there are many matters that need addressing. I find, of course, that this case is with merit, as it has been puzzling me for sometime. Let us move forward, and while we are most certainly not many voices in unison, we are many voices in solidarity, and I hope that we may stay that way.

ravensfire

Mar 15, 2006, 09:27 PM

Ah, I see the procedures are linked in your main post - excellent! My apologoes for missing it initially.

We've got the beginnings of a busy term - docket the requests and let's roll!

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

DaveShack

Mar 15, 2006, 09:37 PM

Do the other two justices approve the procedures? That's the missing step. ;) I think Ravensfire has just implicitly approved them btw.

Curufinwe

Mar 15, 2006, 09:48 PM

Okay, as i've already said, all requests have been found with merit. Unsure of what quite to do here, but I believe, from the procedures given, that I am to post the request, and then clearly denote the questions. It is my opinion, given in context of what the Supreme Court of Canada does, that, in addition to the question given by the person bringing forth the questions, those questions which I feel are relevant to deciding the case be included.

Anyways, in regards to the first case, that of amending the code of laws, the only questions are thes:

1) Does the amendment process given in Section 10 of the Code of Laws apply to a complete overhaul? Explain your reasoning.

2) Is this amendment process consistent with the Constitution?

In regards to the second case, that of offices being jointly held, the questions are as follows:

1) Does the intent of the authors of the Code of Laws and the Constitution have relevancy to the meaning of the same?

2) If so, was it the intent of those authors that all named offices be held by a single person?

3) If so to question 2, what effect would this have on the legality of jointly holding offices?

4) In general, explain other relevant issues to the legality of jointly holding offices, in both the Code of Laws and the Constitution, and if the former is consistent with the latter. Should, if necessary, any words be read in to either of them to clarify this in the future and ensure constitutionality?

In regards to the the third question, that of the legality of Nobody's appointment as Chief Justice, the questions are as follows:

1) In the Presidency is vacant, may the Secretary of State assume the Presidency, acting as a quasi-Vice President?

2) If so, then must the Secretary of State resign in order to be consistent with Section 8, sub-section B of the Code laws? Is this consistent with the Constitution?

3) If so to all of the above, then were the procedures in Section 8, sub-section V, sub-sub-sections VA and VB followed? In what cases, if any, will these have different meanings? Are there any words that need to be read into the Code of Laws to ensure constitutionality, and, if so, what are they?

4) Was Nobody's resignation, if he was appointed, legal? What, if any, words need to be read into the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?

In regards to the fourth case, that of the time an office-holder is considered provisional and subject to a confirmation poll, the questions are as follows:

1) What, if at all, does the Code of Laws say to refer to the time an appointed office is considered provisional? Is this the same time period that that appointment is subject to a confirmation poll?

2) What, if any, words need to be read in to the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?

If there are any comments, or I did anything wrong, I ask to be clarified. I hope that the Judiciary can come to a consensus on all of these matters.

Chillaxation

Mar 15, 2006, 10:19 PM

If my case is left in the docket at the end of the month, it's left at the end of the month.

Just so long as it's in the docket.

ravensfire

Mar 15, 2006, 10:56 PM

Chief Justice, some of these issues will spur some lengthy debate. I would suggest opening a discussion thread in the Citizens forum for each requested review. This will help keep the discussions focused and on track.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Curufinwe

Mar 15, 2006, 11:09 PM

Great idea, right on it.

Nobody

Mar 16, 2006, 02:56 AM

Now, Nobody has refused the position, and, conditionally resigned. Conditional resignations are not uncommon, many leftist protest parties would have their elected representatives sign letters of resignation that the party could use to recall them at any time, provided certain criteria were met.

I never resigned Conditionally, I stood down totally. I never asked for the job back based on the out come of the JR. I stood down and then decided not to apply. The JR is merely to settle the law and my satisifcation.

donsig

Mar 16, 2006, 09:46 AM

OK, since the court has decided to NOT look at Chieftess's appointment first AND since the Chief Justice refuses to recuse himself from that case they only alternative left is to challenge Curufinwe's appointment via a confirmation poll. I come before the court now to formally declare my intention to post a confirmation poll. I respectfully ask the court to refrain from conducting judicial business until such time as the poll is completed.

donsig

Mar 16, 2006, 10:09 AM

Confirmation poll posted here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=163396)

Curufinwe

Mar 16, 2006, 05:17 PM

Well a delay of nearly 4 days was most definitely not what I had been hoping on, it is, of course, reasonable, in the interests of justice and democracy. I ask my colleagues on the Judiciary to be patient, and to be diligent when the time comes that we must, at last, answer these questions.

Swissempire

Mar 16, 2006, 06:27 PM

Actually your honor, its supposed to be a 48 hour poll, you can still conduct buisness during that time, and i read the 72 hour thing for the first time, and it is refering to appointing citiziens in office. You can appoint any citizien after 72 hours, but any interested citiziens who don't hold an office before then.

Donsig:thumbdown

Court back in session :hammer: (note: I don;t have the authority to actually bring the court back to session)

Curufinwe

Mar 16, 2006, 07:35 PM

I'm inclined to bow before others in the name of maintaining solidarity, so will happily keep court of session until such time as I am confirmed or not as Chief Justice, so as to prevent even more disagreement on my legitimacy.

Curufinwe

Mar 16, 2006, 08:36 PM

donsig

Mar 16, 2006, 09:31 PM

Due to requests, and that it affects my perceived legitimacy as CJ, the case on the legality of a Secretary of State assuming the Presidency and exercising its powers, and on the legality of appointments coming from the same, be placed as first priority, to be dealt with, if I am confirmed, at my confirmation.

Thank you very much. :goodjob:

however, since the issue of conflict of interest has not changed I respectfully ask the sitting CJ to recuse himself form this judicial review.

ravensfire

Mar 17, 2006, 09:15 AM

Actually your honor, its supposed to be a 48 hour poll, you can still conduct buisness during that time, and i read the 72 hour thing for the first time, and it is refering to appointing citiziens in office. You can appoint any citizien after 72 hours, but any interested citiziens who don't hold an office before then.

Donsig:thumbdown

Swissempire :thumbdown

Calling out a citizen for exercising their rights? Ridiculous!

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Swissempire

Mar 17, 2006, 10:11 AM

Swissempire :thumbdown

Calling out a citizen for exercising their rights? Ridiculous!

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

How was i calling out a citizien for excersising his rights??????? :dubious: NOt sure what you were talking about. All i was doing was pointing out my distaste for Donsig maliciously using extra-legal interperations to cow the citiziens/Cheif Justice.

Black_Hole

Mar 17, 2006, 10:35 AM

How was i calling out a citizien for excersising his rights??????? :dubious: NOt sure what you were talking about. All i was doing was pointing out my distaste for Donsig maliciously using extra-legal interperations to cow the citiziens/Cheif Justice.
he was using a confirmation poll, which is in every citizen's right to do

Swissempire

Mar 17, 2006, 11:35 PM

I agree, but he isn;t posting a confimation poll, and when told that it would be one if he would allow a simnple change to be made, he wouldn't. Also, by saying that if he got his way he would drop it! how is that not an intimidation tactic. He is attempting to strong-arm the entire game so he can get his way. I'm okay with a confirmation poll, a legal citizien complaint, but he has a malicious intent, and thats what the :thumbdown: was for

robboo

Mar 18, 2006, 09:43 AM

all this arguing might be usless...has the third member of the judiciary even responded?

Do we even have a full judiciary?

Curufinwe

Mar 18, 2006, 07:09 PM

Being confirmed, let's get a move on with things. The case I gave highest priority, seeing as it was the only request made, was to deal with the legality of the Secretary of State assuming the power of the Presidency. Second priority is the code of Laws amendment formula, third that of jointly held offices, and lastly (due to the request of Chillaxation) the case on when an appointment ceases being provisional.

Before I begin though, I would like to hear what other people think of reading in and reading out, and whether or not they are accepted in the DG, because, again, I'm inexperienced and don't want to make a mistake.

Swissempire

Mar 18, 2006, 07:14 PM

It shouldn't matter that your inexperienced. But anywho, since reading in and reading out have never occured in the Civ4 DG, i think it is wise for you to take it into account. What would you read in and read out about. i think it would be on a case by case basis.

DaveShack

Mar 18, 2006, 07:23 PM

Before I begin though, I would like to hear what other people think of reading in and reading out, and whether or not they are accepted in the DG, because, again, I'm inexperienced and don't want to make a mistake.

I'd love to help but don't know what you mean by reading in and reading out. ;)

Also you still need to consider the effect of hearing the first case on the general view of the judiciary as impartial.

Curufinwe

Mar 18, 2006, 07:33 PM

Yes, I still haven't come to a final decision, but I don't want the whole process to wait up just on me, so until I decide to stand aside or not, I'll continue having things work. Anyways, what reading in is, also called extension, is where you take the text of a law and make it conform to higher law. Take, for example, in Canada where we had a fight over employment insurance, and how the laws were, I believe, sexist. Now, up until then the Supreme Court would strike down laws that were ultra vires, or, beyond the power of Parliament or the Legislative Assemblies to act, in that it would violate the rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the EI legislation violated the guarantee to Equality, the Court felt that the law was unconstitutional. However, leaving a void in the legislation would mean that new legislation would have to be redrafted, repassed, etc. and that the EI program would cease to exist until that happened. This would, of course, not be just. So, the Court decided under the pioneering Chief Justice Antonio Lamer to read in new words to the law to make it conform to the Constitution. The argument relied on s.51 (or 52, something like that) of the Constitution of Canada, where it says that the Constitution is the supreme law. Since all lower laws have to conform to it, the Court was basically cutting out the middle-person and saving Parliament from having to rework the legislation to make it conform, because it was automatically fixed. Reading out is the same thing, also called severance, except instead of adding words you drop off the bad parts. For example, if a law were to say "the retirement age is 65, and 60 for women" the last 4 words would be dropped from the text to make the whole conform to the constitution without getting rid of the entire law on retirement. Basically, it was just a little exercise in easing the work Parliament has to do.

Since its invention in Canada, it's been adopted by South Africa and Israel, among others. In general it's used by the Courts (in conjunction with the living tree doctrine) to ensure that the laws are just, and to make them that way without having to go back to Parliament.

Swissempire

Mar 18, 2006, 07:44 PM

I see no problem with that if you allow the ability for the citiziens to overrule any case involving Judicial Addition or Severance(sounds better than reading in and out). Also any cases of reading in or out must involve making it fit with the constition

DaveShack

Mar 18, 2006, 07:50 PM

Thanks for the explanation. :D

The DG has precedent for something similar to "reading out", namely a CoL section can be declared to be in conflict with the Constitution and thus ineffective either for a specific situation or generally. We don't have the equivalent of "reading in" by the court.

I'll refrain from commenting on the SoS appointment issue for a while to preserve my impartiality in the case, but if you decide to go forward with it yourself please don't close the discussion until I get a chance to weigh in.

donsig

Mar 18, 2006, 09:19 PM

I would like to know when the sitting chief justice will make his decision to recuse himslef from the JR (or JRs) that directly or indirectly cast a shadow of doubt upon the validity of his appointment. I intend to file a citizen complaint against the sitting chief justice IF he decides not to recuse himself from the aforementioned JRs. I do not want to do that anymore than I wanted to post the recent confirmation poll but I will do what I feel is right.

In the event the sitting chief justice does not recuse himself and said complaint is filed I expect it to be placed on the docket before any other business is conducted (assuming, of course, that said complaint is found to have merit).

Since the sitting chief justice is still comtemplating what is right and proper to do, I do not yet want to file said complaint - hence my reason for asking for the time frame of an expected decision. If no time frame is given I see no alternative but to file the complaint.

Curufinwe

Mar 18, 2006, 11:43 PM

Given consideration, I've reached this conclusion.

The lack of bias on the part of the judiciary, called impartiality, is vital to the judiciary. The main thing judiciary's the world over do is protect equality, to be trusted that the Judiciary will always act in a way which protects the equal and inviolable dignity of all persons, regardless of other matters. This must be protected.

Now then, the question that inevitably must come up is, how does this effect the current Judiciary. Would any members have any vested interest in the case? In the case we are dealing with, the answer is a most definite no. The reasoning behing it is simple, we start off with nobody's appointment,was he or not? If not, than we are done. If he was, then that appointment needed to end. Now, there are a variety of statements he made which can be interpreted as resigning the post. If his interpretation is to be accepted (and who else would interpret your own words in such a manner) then again, we are done, their was a vacancy. Nobody voluntarily consented to the process of choosing a CJ, and then removed himself for his own reasons. Therefore, he implied again that he wasn't currently CJ, and didn't want to be. If not, then their wasn't, until Nobody definitively said that he resigned (which was after my appointment). Now, we must look at things. Since he has most definitely resigned now, under the line of reasoning that he was still CJ, I could not have filled that vacancy.

Of course, to do that, you would have to assert that someone other than him would have the right to tell him whether or not he resigned. There is no basis for that, none whatsoever. However, let us, for arguments sake, say that we could tell Nobody whether or not he resigned. Then, because he definitively did in the end, their would be a vacancy. In other words, we'd simply start the process we were at a few days ago, and a new call would be made, and, while I do not claim to speak for Chillaxation, I would presume, given the absence of any change, that he would appoint me again. In other words, the whole exercise would have been a stalling measure, without purpose.

Therefore, the facts of the case, as DaveShack so eloquently put it, are that the Judiciary is perfectly impartial in this case. I have seen no reasonable argument to say that it isn't. However, as he mentioned, the appearance of the Judiciary must be remembered as well. If the judiciary appears impartial, and this undermines its authority, then that would ruin justice. In this case, I completely agree with DaveShack, and thus should stand aside.

However, there are other things which should be remembered, as others have continually reminded me. There is a job to be done, and the continuous stalling we say counteracts justice continually ("justice delayed is justice denied") and the judiciary is mandated to act "speedily", an equal value to that of "impartially". So, no matter what, I can be reasonably CCed, for violating some principle. So then, the only way to save this would for my standing aside to threaten the impartiality of the judiciary in some way.

And it does. If the judiciary can be frightened into doing what a vocal minority wants, then justice will be denied, and this undermines the impartiality by allowing power to taint the bench. That is, if one person can, through intimidation, through fear tactics and the like, influence a decision, then impartiality is destroyed in fact and in appearance.

Therefore, in a world where there are many values, all relative to one another, I've done what does the least harm. Perhaps little good will come, but I can do no better. I will judge the case, and face the attack that has been promised.

Swissempire

Mar 19, 2006, 02:18 AM

:clap: :clap: :clap:

So eleoquent for a forum post. OMG

donsig

Mar 19, 2006, 08:42 AM

I hereby formally request that a Citizen Complaint be heard against Curufinwe, sitting chief justice, for violating Article F, Clause 3 of our constitution. This article states The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.

Numerous judicial reviews have been brought before the judiciary regarding the legality of Secretary of State Chieftess's appointment of Nobody as chief justice. (The SoS thread with that appointment is here.) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=161305) The legal status of that appointment has a direct bearing on subsequent actions, including president Chillaxation's appointment of Curufinwe as chief justice. By hearing the judicial reviews and making official and binding decisions upon them, Curufinwe would, in effect, be deciding upon the legality and validity of his own appointment as chief justice. By definition this is a conflict of interest and cannot be considered either fair or impartial. I ask the members of the judiciary to recognize this inherent conflict of interest and find that this complaint has merit.

I reserve the right (as outlined in the judicial procedures) to withdraw this complaint if Curufinwe reverses his decision and recuses himself from the judicial reviews that have a bearing on the legality and validity of his appointment as chief justice.

In the interest of speeding this process along I would like to state here the sentence I would ask for if Curufinwe accepts the charges as outlined in the judicial procedures. Since this is not an attack on Curufinwe I would not ask that he be drawn and quartered, nor even that he be asked to stand down from the position he claims is legally his. I would merely request that he recuse himself from the judicial reviews that have a bearing on the legality and validity of his appointment as chief justice.

Black_Hole

Mar 19, 2006, 09:04 AM

Just a question that has already been brought up, is the Judge Advocate active? I haven't seen him post for awhile.

Curufinwe

Mar 19, 2006, 09:38 AM

Swissempire

Mar 19, 2006, 10:32 AM

For your trial, will you be defending yourself, or accepting Ravensfire's defense, or you know, if you really need someone, i'm here for you

Black_Hole

Mar 19, 2006, 11:05 AM

As per Judicial Procedures, I would like the court to start an Absence Investigation on Veera Anlai.
According to Judicial procedures the person the investigation is over must have not posted with 7 days. According to the forum search, Veera Anlai's last post was on March 11th:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3803229&postcount=39

I believe this should be put at the top of the docket since a JA is needed in a CC.

donsig

Mar 19, 2006, 12:00 PM

Well, for judging over my CC and whether or not it has merit, I would like to appoint Nobody as a pro-tem justice, given that what I've seen of his judgement seems fair (another value I've done my best to uphold, along with the other 3) and seek Chillaxations assent.

Well, that's about the craziest thing I've heard yet in this fiasco. Nobody has the same conflict of interest in all this that you do Curufinwe! :wallbash:

Swissempire

Mar 19, 2006, 12:17 PM

I volunteer to Pro-tem is neccary

Swissempire

Mar 19, 2006, 12:54 PM

I would would request a Judicial Review into my actions during the Confirmation Poll, and a Judicial Review into the legality of said poll.

I would also like to file a Citizien Complaint against Donsig for intentionally impedeing the speedyness of the Judiciary, and pending the JR on the legality of the confirmation poll, violating Section 8, Article C, Subsection VIA of the CoL. I resersve the right to clarify/tack on charges

robboo

Mar 19, 2006, 12:58 PM

the pro- tem should be someone not associated with the problem. Swissy and nonbody have voiced their opinions and are tainted--no offense guys but it needs to be someone clean, preferably someone who hasnt weighted in to keep the position of neutrality.

AGAIN.. I am not saying you guys could not be fair but its in the view of the public that the neutrality must be maintained.

The pro-tem should be appointed by the president...not buy the current CJ ( again neutrality).

Black_Hole

Mar 19, 2006, 02:22 PM

We only use pro terms when a Justice isn't sitting on a case.
If Veera Anlai is declared absent, the President appoints a new Judge Advocate

Also Swissempire can hardly be called impartial. I find it hard to see him being a good prosecutor against Curufinwe.

Swissempire

Mar 19, 2006, 02:28 PM

I wan't volunteering to pro-tem as JA. :nono: I was volunteering tom CJ the SoS case, to which i am impartial. And it is well know that my opinion is very easily changed

Black_Hole

Mar 19, 2006, 02:34 PM

I would would request a Judicial Review into my actions during the Confirmation Poll, and a Judicial Review into the legality of said poll.

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.

You need to ask a question about a conflict or unclear section of the law.
We need to keep bad JRs off the docket so we can get through some stuff.

Swissempire

Mar 19, 2006, 03:12 PM

Ok, tkae the first JR off, and make the last JR on the docket about the Legality of the confirmation poll, and whether confirmation polls need to be 48 hours

Nobody

Mar 19, 2006, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Curufinwe
Well, for judging over my CC and whether or not it has merit, I would like to appoint Nobody as a pro-tem justice, given that what I've seen of his judgement seems fair (another value I've done my best to uphold, along with the other 3) and seek Chillaxations assent.

Well, that's about the craziest thing I've heard yet in this fiasco. Nobody has the same conflict of interest in all this that you do Curufinwe! images/smilies/wallbash.gif

First the request, I am honoured that you would seek myself as Pro-tem but it is clear that i have sided with you previously on many subjects and although i gurantee that I would fair and impartial i still think on matters such as these it is better to be safe than sorry.

That said donsig, Although it would be a conflict of intrest if i myself tried the Judical review (as it put it forward). There would be no such conflict if i was trying Curufinwe for violating Article F, Clause 3 of the constitution. Anyway in order to keep the public tranquility i shall not attcept the postion of Chief Justice..

Curufinwe

Mar 19, 2006, 04:14 PM

Damn, was really hoping to get amove on with things, but thanks anyways. Well then, I suppose I need to find someone else. Someone impartial, but intelligent and fair. I'll come up with a new person in abit then.

Swissempire

Mar 19, 2006, 04:17 PM

Me, me ,me, oh wait, Donsig doesn't like me.:(
Edit: Gahh, we are letting ourselves be intimidated by Donsig and CO. Since when should we have to follow the will of the few over the will of the many. the #1 Citiziens rights activist has thrown aside his cause to further his agenda. There is no law aginst him trying to strong-arm the judiciary. Go with what you feel Curufinwe. The Judiciary is NOT supposed to be swayed by public opinion, they are supposed to look at things neutrally and from a legal standpoint, NOT to worry about the disagreers

Curufinwe

Mar 19, 2006, 04:18 PM

Terribly sorry Swiss, but I would like someone who can be viewed by all as impartial. Sadly, I feel that you don't fall under that, though I most strongly disagree with this decision.

Black_Hole

Mar 19, 2006, 04:23 PM

Terribly sorry Swiss, but I would like someone who can be viewed by all as impartial. Sadly, I feel that you don't fall under that, though I most strongly disagree with this decision.
DaveShack posted earlier in this thread that he would be willing to be a pro tem justice.
I'm not trying to force a person on you, I just want to get this process moving and I think DS is probably the most neutral person around.

Swissempire

Mar 19, 2006, 04:31 PM

Curufinwe

Mar 19, 2006, 04:32 PM

Of course, and I like the way he thinks, as he heavily influenced my decision so far. Yes, great suggestion Black hole, I would like to put forward DS as pro-tem justice for my CC case. Hopefully he and Chillaxation accept.

Swissempire

Mar 19, 2006, 04:33 PM

I can live with Daveshack

Nobody

Mar 19, 2006, 04:39 PM

Oh just so you know in my post, the bold was stuck on. No reason for the bold. Also Daveshack is great but if he decideds not too accept, i would like to just throw mhcarver name into the mix.

Black_Hole

Mar 19, 2006, 05:35 PM

Mr. Chief Justice:
Would you please start an absence investigation on Veera Anlai, without a Judge Advocate the CC cannot go on.

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.

Curufinwe

Mar 19, 2006, 05:53 PM

Another few days lost, but fine. I have a feeling all of these cases won't get done until next term, but if tha'ts what's necessary to reach justice, so be it.

Black_Hole

Mar 19, 2006, 06:11 PM

Another few days lost, but fine. I have a feeling all of these cases won't get done until next term, but if tha'ts what's necessary to reach justice, so be it.
Whats the alternative? Have a court made of a Public Defender and Chief Justice? There really is no fast way of doing this.

Curufinwe

Mar 19, 2006, 06:24 PM

I know, which is why I say it's a good thing. "but fine" "but if that's what's necessary to reach justice, so be it." I wish things could have gotten done faster, but they can't, so this is the best way.

donsig

Mar 19, 2006, 07:45 PM

Oh just so you know in my post, the bold was stuck on. No reason for the bold. Also Daveshack is great but if he decideds not too accept, i would like to just throw mhcarver name into the mix.

I would also add Oxtavian X's name. He, too has judicial experience (IIRC) and hasn't been a part of this discussion yet.

I would also like to ask that, just supposing, this complaint is found to have merit and (just for laughs and giggles) a decision is rendered that Curufinwe should recuse himself from the judicial reviews in question - would this pro tem continue on to hear the JRs or would another appointment be made? If another appointment is to be made then would I be correct in assuming that the first pro tem could be re-appointed? Just wondering.

Veera Anlai

Mar 19, 2006, 08:29 PM

I'm here guys. Now, this whole past couple weeks has been confusing as all heck, so bear with me as I reread everything that has occurred, and try to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Curufinwe, would you kindly forward me any PMs you have that have any bearing on the investigations going on?

Veera Anlai

Mar 19, 2006, 09:23 PM

I've read and reread the Judiciary thread, and other applicable threads. It was rather confusing, since there is a lot going on very quickly. For my sake, and the sake of anyone reading this thread, here is a summary of what the judiciary needs to deal with at the moment. Please correct me if there are any errors.

JR5 A judicial review has been requested by Strider, asking whether the method for amending the Code of Laws can also replace the Code of Laws. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
JR6 A judicial review has been requested by Robboo, asking whether offices can be held by more than one person. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
JR7 A judicial review has been requested by Nobody, asking whether Chieftess could have legally appointed him to the vacant position of Chief Justice, and whether the Secretary of State has the right to assume the powers of the presidency in the absence of an elected president. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
JR8 A judicial review has been requested by Chillaxation, asking if provisional appointments become official appointments when the period for a confirmation poll has lapsed. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
CC1 A citizen complaint was filed by Donsig against Curufinwe, citing violation of Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution.
The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.
AA2 An absence investigation was filed by Black Hole against Veera Anlai.
JR9 A judicial review was requested by Swiss Empire for "my actions during the confirmation poll." He later rescinded his request.
CC2 A citizen complaint was filed by Swiss Empire against Donsig, accusing him of violating CoL.8.C.VIA.
CC3 A citizen complaint was filed by Swiss Empire against Donsig, accusing him of "impeding the speediness of the judiciary." No law is cited.
JR10 A judicial review was requested by Swiss Empire asking whether confirmation polls need to be 48 hours long, and whether the confirmation poll of Curufinwe as Chief Justice, posted by Donsig, was legal. No law is cited. Curufinwe has not ruled on the merit of this review.

I would request that Curufinwe please provide a docket, to determine which of these cases should be ruled on in which order.

EDITS: Wording changed to be more impartial. Merit/No Merit added. Added case names. Added Absence Investigation of myself.

Swissempire

Mar 19, 2006, 09:37 PM

Sorry about not citing, For:

A citizen complaint was filed by Swiss Empire against Donsig for impeding the speediness of the jury.
The law supposed to be cited is Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution.
The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.. The hoped for ruling is a public apology

for
A judicial review was requested by Swiss Empire asking whether confirmation polls need to be 48 hours long, and whether the confirmation poll of Curufinwe as Chief Justice, posted by Donsig, was legal. No law is cited.

The law cited was supposed to be CoL.8.C.VIA., and the citzien complaint against Donsig depends on the outcome of this ruling.

and for A citizen complaint was filed by Swiss Empire against Donsig for violating CoL.8.C.VIA.
the hoped for ruling is a Public Apology

Strider

Mar 19, 2006, 09:40 PM

Court is all here then. So let's do these JR's in chronological order!

DaveShack

Mar 19, 2006, 09:41 PM

Veera, welcome back to our little shop of horrors. :eek:

I am willing to serve as pro-tem CJ on the matter of Curufinwe's CC and accept the appointment. I will refrain from making any statement on what process might be required to verify a pro-tem appointment, for reasons which should be obvious.

Although I don't yet claim an official right to proceed with any case, I will suggest that things will be speeded along if the JA and PD will proceed with posting their opinion regarding the merit of the charge against Curufinwe. Justices, for now please use your own interpretation of whether such a determination must be made, and the form it is to take.

Again, not to overstep my not yet existent authority, but if the JA and PD think the law allows for an out of court settlement in this matter, please discuss such a settlement with your client(s) and interested parties. As a citizen, I was very happy to see the "remedy" system used in the past, and would welcome its use for this case.

Black_Hole

Mar 19, 2006, 10:09 PM

Curufinwe

Mar 19, 2006, 10:23 PM

Okay, here's priority, followed by reasoning

CC1-determines who exactly the judiciary is, necessary to continue work.
JR7-Most contentious, deemed by some to affect composition of judiciary.
JR10-Again, affects the judiciary
CC2&CC3-Affects the matters that affect the judiciary, if tha tmakes sense
JR8-hopefully we can get this solved before appointments begin next time
JR5- Striders trying to do stuff, we should hurry it along so he can begin what he's been trying to do.
JR6-The case that started it all, sadly, to be dealt with last, due to lack of immediate necessity.

If I missed one, please notify me. Now to deal with them in order. I ask the Judiciary to focus on CC1 first of all, and then we can get to work on the other ones when that's done. Daveshack, you will ahve formal authority as a pro-tem justice when Chillaxation assents to your appointment, per the current judicial procedures. Good luck everyone!

robboo

Mar 19, 2006, 10:25 PM

slight clarification..to JR6. It should read "whether an office" just to be very specific.

Veera Anlai

Mar 19, 2006, 10:39 PM

JR5
1) Does the amendment process given in Section 10 of the Code of Laws apply to a complete overhaul? Explain your reasoning.
Yes, section 10 of the Code of Laws allows a complete overhaul. An amendment, according to the dictionary definition of the word 'amendment,' can add, alter, or delete parts of the document it is amending. In this case, the amendment would delete all of the document, and add a whole new document. There is no law in the Code of Laws limiting the size of the changes made in an amendment.

2) Is this amendment process consistent with the Constitution?
The amendment process violates no laws in the Constitution.

Therefore, I rule that the Code of Laws can be entirely rewritten as proposed using the current laws for amendments.

JR6
1) Does the intent of the authors of the Code of Laws and the Constitution have relevancy to the meaning of the same?
Since I, nor any other judiciary members have mind reading powers, we should interpret the laws as written. Although we can ask the authors of the laws what their intent was, we would then be delegating judicial duties (interpretation of the law) to members outside of the judiciary.

2) If so, was it the intent of those authors that all named offices be held by a single person?
Not applicable, since I do not believe the intent of the authors is relevant.

3) If so to question 2, what effect would this have on the legality of jointly holding offices?
Not applicable, since I do not believe the intent of the authors is relevant.

4) In general, explain other relevant issues to the legality of jointly holding offices, in both the Code of Laws and the Constitution, and if the former is consistent with the latter. Should, if necessary, any words be read in to either of them to clarify this in the future and ensure constitutionality?
The Code of Laws and the Constitution make numerous references to individuals running for election. Not pairs. As such, I rule that citizens can not hold joint office. This can be remedied with an amendment, but that is beyond the scope of this judicial review.

JR7
1) In the Presidency is vacant, may the Secretary of State assume the Presidency, acting as a quasi-Vice President?
The Secretary of State is not given the power to assume the presidency anywhere in the Constitution or Code of Laws. The Secretary of the State only has the power to nominate a citizen to the Presidency.

2) If so, then must the Secretary of State resign in order to be consistent with Section 8, sub-section B of the Code laws? Is this consistent with the Constitution?
Not applicable, since the Secretary of State does not have the power to assume the presidency.

3) If so to all of the above, then were the procedures in Section 8, sub-section V, sub-sub-sections VA and VB followed? In what cases, if any, will these have different meanings? Are there any words that need to be read into the Code of Laws to ensure constitutionality, and, if so, what are they?
Not applicable.

4) Was Nobody's resignation, if he was appointed, legal? What, if any, words need to be read into the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?
Nobody's appointment to the office of Chief Justice was not legal, since Chieftess was not legally allowed to assume the presidency and make such appointments. Since Nobody was never appointed to the office of Chief Justice, there was no resignation.

JR8
1) What, if at all, does the Code of Laws say to refer to the time an appointed office is considered provisional? Is this the same time period that that appointment is subject to a confirmation poll?
There is clearly an error in the Code of Laws: the laws clearly state that an appointee is provisional until a confirmation poll votes for approval, or the deadline for a confirmation poll passes. However, although this deadline is mentioned in the laws, the laws do not say how long this deadline is.

2) What, if any, words need to be read in to the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?
I'm afraid I don't understand this question.

I can not arbitrarily set a time limit not mentioned in the Code of Laws, since that would be giving myself legislative powers. Because of this, all appointees shall be considered provisional for an indefinite period of time, unless a confirmation poll approves them.

To rectify this, someone should propose a correction to the laws immediately, setting a deadline for confirmation polls. Proposals to change the laws are beyond the scope of this Judicial Review.

CC1
I believe this complaint has merit. Impartiality is critically important to the judiciary, and I believe the citizens should have a chance to have their say in this matter.

AA2
Obviously, I'm here now. However, according to the Judicial Procedure, the Chief Justice must begin voting on this issue.

CC2
My ruling on this citizen complaint depends on the judiciary's ruling on JR10.

CC3
I rule that this complaint has no merit. The laws in this section apply to the judiciary, not to citizens. There is no law declaring impeding the speediness of the judiciary is illegal: instead, the law says the judiciary itself is responsible for making certain it hears cases in a timely manner. In addition, Donsig is perfectly within his rights to call for judicial reviews and citizen complaints: merely calling for them does not impede the speediness of the judiciary.

JR10
The ruling on this judicial review depends on the final judiciary ruling on JR8.

Curufinwe

Mar 19, 2006, 10:45 PM

Hmm, according to judicial procedures the Judiciary is supposed to vote on whether or not veera's seat should be declared vacant. I say NO, the seat is not vacant, as veera is here.

Veera Anlai

Mar 19, 2006, 10:47 PM

**Laughs** Obviously, now that Curufinwe opened voting, I vote 'NO' on AA2, since I am quite clearly here. :-)

Curufinwe

Mar 19, 2006, 10:56 PM

Hopefully no one claims that is a conflict of interest, hah.

Swissempire

Mar 19, 2006, 11:16 PM

YAY, The judiciary is moving!!!! Yay!!!!

And Veera, i respect your opinon that the CC has no merit. I only posted it because i felt that by Donsig extending the poll for to extra days so he could get the Cheif Justice to stand aside was impedeing them. But yor probably right:)

Veera Anlai

Mar 19, 2006, 11:59 PM

As is my duty as Judge Advocate, the trial discussion thread for CC1 against Curufinwe has been posted in the Discussion forum. Once all sides have posted their say, the thread will be open for public discussion.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3832609#post3832609

Black_Hole

Mar 20, 2006, 07:37 AM

As is my duty as Judge Advocate, the trial discussion thread for CC2 against Curufinwe has been posted in the Discussion forum. Once all sides have posted their say, the thread will be open for public discussion.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3832609#post3832609
Shouldn't it be CC1? CC2 is a citizen complaint against Donsig, filed by Swissempire.

Veera Anlai

Mar 20, 2006, 08:23 AM

>_>; **Ahem** Whatever do you mean Black Hole?

Edit: Changed.

Black_Hole

Mar 20, 2006, 08:36 AM

>_>; **Ahem** Whatever do you mean Black Hole?

Edit: Changed.
You need a mod to change the title of this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=163906
After a certain amount of time from the post you can't change it

donsig

Mar 20, 2006, 09:52 AM

Whoa, whoa, here. Veera Anlai, you're getting way ahead of us here by posting all those opinions on the various judicial reviews. Maybe I'm the only one but I have refrained from participating in the discussion threads on these judicial reviews until such time as the appointment of the CJ is resolved. I had hoped the judiciary would hear all legal arguments before ruling on these cases! Are we to take the opinions you posted earlier as official rulings???

ravensfire

Mar 20, 2006, 12:08 PM

Holy cow - there's a lot going on here! I go away for the weekend and madness ensues!

Curufinwe, if possible, please copy the summary Veera posted into your initial post as the start of our docket and keep it updated. Look at the first term thread for a good example. Also, as various matters are resolved, be sure to update the Judicial Log.

Official business, for right now, I'll issue opinions only the two CC requests and the Absence investigation.

C4DG1CC1 - People vs Curufinwe
donsig has requested an Investigation of Curufinwe for a possible violation of Article F, Clause 3 of the Constitution "The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner."

I find this request to have merit and should be moved to the trial phase.

C4DG1CC2 - People vs donsig
Swissempire has requested an Investigation of donsig for a possible violation of Article F, Clause 3 of the Constitution "The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner."

I find this request to not have merit.

Ruling:
The clause cited by Swissempire tasks the Judiciary with executing its tasks, in part, in a speedy manner. donsig does not have any office in the Judiciary, and thus cannot be held responsible for the actions of the Judiciary. He may request those actions he deems fit, and allow the Judiciary to handle those requests. The clause cited cannot be used as a frame for an investigation of a private citizen.

Further, a review of the full ruleset does not yield any law that might have been violated by donsig. All of the actions under question taken by donsig are guaranteed by law. The thought that we should hold a trial for a citizen when they are exercising their rights is reprehensible to me, as it should be to all citizens. Rights are not given power when exercised with the majority, they are given power when a minority uses them to oppose the majority.

C4DG1AA2 - Veera Anlai
Black_Hole has requested an Absence Investigation of Judge Advocate Veera Anlai. With the post by Veera subsequent to this request, I find this request to not have merit.

Welcome to the bench, Veera!

Summary of other matters
I am withholding my decision on the remaining JR's until the CC against Curufinwe has been resolved. I encourage ALL citizens to participate in those discussions, so that when the case is resolved, these matters may be closed quickly.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

mhcarver

Mar 20, 2006, 03:22 PM

Veera Anlai

Mar 20, 2006, 04:02 PM

Judicial procedure says I can post my findings after twenty-four hours have passed. In addition, debate in the Judicial Review discussion threads had died down for two days before I posted my findings. Also, I believe part of my duty is to do all this in a speedy manner, no?

I've refrained from ruling on any matters which rely on currently pending cases. The rest of my findings stand. ^_^

EDIT: While I understand that the CC against Curufinwe is important, and that it may affect his decision to rule on these Judicial Reviews, I do *not* believe that the CC affects my own decisions on said Judicial Reviews, and my decisions will remain the same whether or not Curufinwe is found innocent. Just a clarification.

Chillaxation

Mar 20, 2006, 06:19 PM

I read the procedures, all...and it doesn't say anything about who appoints a pro-tem CJ for a CC against the sitting (disputed) CJ.

And since the procedures are in the hands of the CJ who posted them, I ask you, Curu, if you think it would be correct for me to appoint a CJ to oversee your CC.

Curufinwe

Mar 20, 2006, 06:29 PM

The procedures say that the CJ will appoint pro-tems and seek confirmation from the President. I have chosen DaveShack due to his intelligence and independence, and now all we await is your assent for him to be pro-tem for this case.

ravensfire

Mar 20, 2006, 06:34 PM

Chillaxation

Mar 20, 2006, 06:38 PM

:crazyeye: Guys, I looked through the section on CC but not the bullet points above. And I was searching the document for about 15 minutes. :rolleyes: And there's really not that much document.

I totally missed the bullet point on pro-tem justices at the beginning of the procedures.

I'll go over to the trial thread and confirm DS as presiding, there.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Strider

Mar 21, 2006, 06:19 PM

I put the following amendment to the CoL up for Judicial Review:

Code of Laws

Element A. The Government
The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch. These branches and the Citizenry as a whole are responsible for the management of the game

Element B. The Executive Branch
The Executive Branch is headed by the President, the overall Leader of the land, and shall include a group of Advisors, each of whom heads a office that is responsible for one major facet of the country. Any duties that are not given to a Leader is automatically assumed to be part of the Presidents duties, this includes management of the National Budget.

Section 1. Ministry of War
The Ministry of War is charged with management of all offensive and defensive units. They are also given the duty of tatical planning during war and the strategic planning of war. During times of both peace and war, the Ministry of War is tasked with the management of the Nations Defense.

Section 2. Office of Culture
The Advisor of culture is charged with the movement and placement of settlers. They are also charged with the formation of boundaries and the monitoring of our culture levels. The building of wonders and the control of Great Prophets and Artists are also given to the Office of Culture. Additionaly, culture is responsible for the spread of religion throughout the continent.

Section 3. Office of Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs is charged with the negotiation of treaties and all espionage related activities. It is also given the duty of exploration. They are also charged with the management of all trade related activities, and are given control of Great Merchants.

Section 4. Office of Research and Development
The Office of Research and Development is given control over all worker related activities. They are also charged with our nations research and the sliders. The Office is also given the duty of technological research, and controls all Great Scientists and Engineers.

Section 5. The Censors Office
The Censors Office is tasked with the duty of validating polls and elections, and determining the census. Upon election, the Censor shall lay down polling procedures for his term in office. The Censor is also responsible for the management of elections, and for polling and discussinh the naming of units and cities.

Section 6. Designated Players
The designated players are responsible for the play of the save. A designated player controls worker movement and actions during their play session. Designated players must follow the instructions and goals of a leader, if possible.

Element C. The Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch shall be made up of The House and the Governors.

Section 1. The Governors
The Governors are charged with the management and specialization of a single city. They have the power to hire specialized cities, and to create the build queue for their city.

Section 2. The House
The house is formed by the a census of the active citizenry, and is charged with the formation and passing of laws.

Element D. The Census and amending the Code of Laws
The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested elections shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the House). A simple majority of the house must be achieved for an amendment to pass. An amendment must pass a Judicial Review and be open for discussion for 72 hours before a poll may be posted. The poll must remain open for 48 hours.

Element E. The Election process
Elections shall decide who among the citizenry are trusted to manage the game. The President, the Advisors, Judiciary, Governors, and Designated Players are all elected. Each of these poistions, excepting the Judiciary, shall have a deputy chosen by the winning citizen. The Election process shall be made up of Nominations, Debates, and the Elections themselves. No citizen may run for the same office 3 consecutive terms.

Section 1. Nominations and Debates
Nominations shall be posted approximately 8 days before the end of the term, debates will last through the duration of the nominations. Nominations will be closed when the election polls start.

Section 2. Election Polls
Election Polls shall be posted approximately 4 days before the end of the term, and will be set to run for 3 days (72 hours). The candidate with the highest number of votes at the end of the 3 days is considered the winner. If two candidates tie, then a run-off poll, lasting 2 days (48 hours) is posted with just those two canidates. The election for designated players shall be multiple choice, and list all of the possible candidates. Any candidate that recieves over 50% of the vote is a designated player for that term.

Section 3. Judicial Terms
The Judiciary shall remain in power one week after the election of a new Judiciary. At this time, the newly elected Judiciary shall take over.

Element F. Vacant Poistions
An advisor or Justice may declare themselves to be Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 1 week. During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act with all power and duties of that office, surrendering them to the official or Justice when they return or at the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first. If this period exceeds one week, then the deputy or pro-term may keep the power and duties of the office, unless they decide to give it up. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3 days in a thread related to their area without prior notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

Section 1. Judicial Absence's
If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter for seven days, the remaining Justices may declare the Justice Vacant. If all three Justices fail to post on any active Judicial matter for seven days, the President may declare all Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately appoint a new Chief Justice. The remaining members of the Judiciary appoint a replacement for a vacant Justice.

Element G. Recall
Any citizen may request a recall for an elected official by posting a thread in the Citizens forum, citing the reasons for the recall. If two or more citizens support the recall, the Chief Justice must post a recall poll. The poll must run for 3 days, be private, and be set up in a Yes/No/Abstain. If 2/3 of the census votes to recall an official, then the official is removed from office, and the office becomes vacant. In the case of a Judicial recall, the President will handle the recall poll.

Element H. Referendum
A referendum is the submission of a proposed public measure or a decree to a direct popular vote, it is the second highest form of decision making. A referendum must comply with all polling procedures.

Article I. Initiative
An initiative is executive legislation created, proposed, and approved by the citizens. It is the highest form of decision making, and over-rides any other decisions, excempting a decision tasked to do so.

Proposing an Initiative
Any citizen of the democracy game can propose an initiative. An initiative must receive atleast 3 days of discussions and two days of polling. Initiatives only hold power during the term they are approved, unless otherwise stated.

Element J. Sunset Clause
A sunset clause is an emergency legislative act. It must be discussed for 48 hours, and receive 24 hours of polling. A simple majority of the house is required to pass the clause. A sunset clause will automatically be removed at the end of the term it was passed in, or during a other pre-determined time. At this time changes made by the sunset clause will revert back to it's original state.

Element K. Effect
This Code of Laws will only come into effect the term after it's approval. This law will be removed after the Code of Laws comes into effect.

donsig

Mar 24, 2006, 10:09 AM

The citizen complaint poll is now closed and the result is 12 votes for innocent, 9 votes for guilty and 3 abstentions. This would seem to resolve the question of forcing the judiciary to do something. However, I would point out that fully fifty percent of those citizens voting in the trial poll did not see fit to cast their vote for the chief justice. That seems to me to be a strong indication that a large proportion of our citizens do not want our judiciary members making official rulings on cases that involve themselves.

In light of this, I once again call upon our chief justice to voluntarily recuse himself from the judicial reviews that have any bearing whatsoever on appointments to the office of chief justice this term. Such a recusal (if that's even a word) could in no way be considered sucummbing to external pressure given the results of the trial poll. It would be looked upon (as least by me, but I imagine by many others as well) as a valiant attempt to restore unity among a divided citizenry and as a noble effort to rebuild faith in our juducial system.

Mr. Chief Justice, please consider recusing yourself from these cases.

DaveShack

Mar 24, 2006, 11:12 AM

As Donsig has already noted...

The CC-1 Jury has found Curufinwe Innocent in this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=164216). The result has been posted in the judicial log.

This ends my involvement in the case as Chief Justice pro-tempore.

ravensfire

Mar 25, 2006, 05:07 PM

Fellow citizens,

We've got a fair number of Judicial Review's outstanding right now. Please, review them and comment as you wish. This is your game, your words have a impact on those of us that make the rulings on those questions.

I intend to post my rulings on all outstanding issues as of now tomorrow evening. It's time to keep this all moving.

-- Ravensfire

Swissempire

Mar 25, 2006, 05:26 PM

I would like to retract both of my CC's against Donsig, but would like to continue with JR10, and would like Curufinwe to rule on its merit.

Curufinwe

Mar 26, 2006, 04:28 PM

I will post rulings later tonight, and then organise the docket. Apologies for my failures, once again, and I'll try my best to rectify them.

Swissempire

Mar 26, 2006, 06:26 PM

I will post rulings later tonight, and then organise the docket. Apologies for my failures, once again, and I'll try my best to rectify them.
They are not failures. You were simply not given enough time to do it with out someone demanding you do something. It must have been over whelming, and you dealt with it with such grace. :goodjob:

ravensfire

Mar 26, 2006, 10:40 PM

Question
Strider asks "Can we accept that the same requirements holds true if your replacing the Code of Laws?"

Relevant Law
From Section 10 of the Code of Laws:
A) Amending the Code of Laws
I. The Code of Laws may be amended by a 60% majority of votes cast in a public poll which shall be open for no fewer than 4 days.

II. Minor changes to the Code of Laws, such as correcting typographical and clerical errors, reorganization and reformatting for better readability, and addition of text which does not impact legal definitions may be made at any time.

IIA. If any citizen objects to a minor change within the 48 hour period commencing when the minor change is proposed, the change shall be considered an amendment and must undergo ratification as such.

Citizen Comments
Thanks to robboo, Strider, Swissempire, Daveshack and Donovan Zoi for their comments on this matter.

Analysis
The question is simple - can an amendment to the Code of Laws be structured so as to completely replace the existing Code of Laws.

Reviewing the law, there are no limits placed on the scope of the amendment. Nor does the Constitution place any limits on the amendment process.

Ruling
Replacing the entire Code of Laws follows the same requirements as any other Amendment would.

Does the amendment process given in Section 10 of the Code of Laws apply to a complete overhaul? Explain your reasoning.
Yes.

Is this amendment process consistent with the Constitution?
Yes.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

EDIT: CJ's questions added

ravensfire

Mar 26, 2006, 10:41 PM

Question
robboo asks "can more than one person share the same elected office."

Relevant Law
Article D of the Constitution:
1. Terms of service of all elected and appointed offices shall be determined in advance of the beginning of such term, as further defined by law.
2. All Election and other polls in which specific individuals are chosen by name shall be private polls, and not public polls.
3. The candidate with the highest vote total is the winner of an election poll, regardless of whether such vote total is a majority of votes cast or not.
1. Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes, as many runoff elections shall be held as needed to resolve the election, as further defined by law.

Section 5 of the Code of Laws:
A) Elections
I. Elections of the Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges shall be of all nominated candidates who have accepted their nominations.

IA. Ballots shall have the names of all the candidates for a given office plus Abstain.

II. Nominations for Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges positions may be self nominations or a citizen may be nominated by another citizens.

III. Elections may only be held for offices that exist at the time of election.

Citizen Comments
Thanks to robboo and Methos for their comments on this.

Analysis
The language used in both sets of laws is clearly predisposed towards a single citizen per office. "Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes ..."; "specific individuals are chosen by name"; "The candidate with the highest vote total"

There are significant issues that can arise with multiple citizen per office, none of which are addressed in the current law. Concerns such as division of duties, legal responsibility and authority are key amongst those, and must be addressed before a shared office should be attempted.

Ruling
Multiple citizens may not share the same elected office during the same term. Nothing prohibits an office holder delegating some of their duties to another citizen, but such delegation only passes the duties, not the responsibilities.

Does the intent of the authors of the Code of Laws and the Constitution have relevancy to the meaning of the same?
Yes. More important is, of course, any relevant section of the law, but courts have long held that the intent of the lawmakers is relevant to discussions.

If so, was it the intent of those authors that all named offices be held by a single person?
I believe so.

If so to question 2, what effect would this have on the legality of jointly holding offices?
None - the language of the law is clear on this matter.

In general, explain other relevant issues to the legality of jointly holding offices, in both the Code of Laws and the Constitution, and if the former is consistent with the latter. Should, if necessary, any words be read in to either of them to clarify this in the future and ensure constitutionality?
The use of "reading in" is unconstitutional and illegal.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

EDIT: CJ's questions added

ravensfire

Mar 26, 2006, 10:42 PM

Question
Nobody asks "But i want a Judical Review if Chieftesses appiontment of myself was legal."

Relevant Law
Section 8.C of the Code of Laws:
I. A Vacancy occurs when an office is empty due to the office holder resigning, judicial action, impeachment, if no citizen ran for election for that office or when a new office is created.

Section 8.C.II of the Code of Laws:
IIA. If there is a Vacancy in the Triumvirate, the President shall nominate a citizen to that office. If the Presidency is Vacant, the Secretary of State, or Secretary of War if the Secretary of State is also Vacant, shall nominate a citizen to that office. The citizen must accept the nomination prior any further steps.

Citizen Comments
Thanks to Swissempire, Chillaxation and DaveShack for their comments on this.

Analysis
The first step in this process was the assumption of Presidential powers by the Secretary of State. This assumption of powers was based on two beliefs - that the office of President was Vacant, and that the Secretary of State would assume the powers of the Presidency if that office was vacant.

Section 8.C.I clearly states the circumstances of declaring an office vacant. The office of President was clearly not empty due to resignation, judicial action or impeachment, nor was it newly created. The only remaining option, no citizen running for office, clearly fails. The election for that office simply was not finished yet.

Given that, the office of President was NOT vacant, thus under no law could the Secretary of State assume the office of President.

Ruling
The appointment of Citizen nobody to the office of Chief Justice was not legal.

In the Presidency is vacant, may the Secretary of State assume the Presidency, acting as a quasi-Vice President?
Clearly not - such an action would be illegal.

If so, then must the Secretary of State resign in order to be consistent with Section 8, sub-section B of the Code laws? Is this consistent with the Constitution?
Not applicable.

If so to all of the above, then were the procedures in Section 8, sub-section V, sub-sub-sections VA and VB followed? In what cases, if any, will these have different meanings? Are there any words that need to be read into the Code of Laws to ensure constitutionality, and, if so, what are they?
Not applicable.
Again, "reading in" is unconstitutional and illegal.

Was Nobody's resignation, if he was appointed, legal? What, if any, words need to be read into the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?
Not applicable.
Again, "reading in" is unconstitutional and illegal.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

EDIT: CJ's questions added.

ravensfire

Mar 26, 2006, 10:43 PM

Question
Chillaxation asks "While there is a clear requirement that appointments be provisional until a "the time for the confirmation poll has passed," that time period is not set for each type of vacancy. For example, how long should a Chief Justice appointment from the presidency be considered provisional before it passes into full effect? I imagine that it is the same moment at which calls for a confirmation poll are no longer valid, but it would be good to have a clear procedure, in my opinion. "

Relevant Law
Section 8.C of the Code of Laws:
VI. All vacancy appointments which are subject to a confirmation poll are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority.

Citizen Comments

Analysis
The question is clear - when does an appointment to an office stop being "provisional"? The relevant clause is clear on this "...are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority." So, there are two scenarios - one of which is when the appointee is confirmed through a poll. The second scenario - "until the time for a confirmation poll has passed" also seems clear, but a review of the Code of Laws does not turn up a deadline for a confirmation poll. Without this, a confirmation poll can be posted at any time during a term. This seems to be a legislative over-sight that should be corrected.

Ruling

Appointees to an office are Provisional until a Confirmation poll concludes with a "Yes" majority.

There is not time limit within a term for when a Confirmation poll may be posted.

What, if at all, does the Code of Laws say to refer to the time an appointed office is considered provisional?
An office is considered provisional until the time for a confirmation poll as passed, or a confirmation poll closes with a "Yes" majority.

Is this the same time period that that appointment is subject to a confirmation poll?
No. There is no time period mentioned for when an appointment is subject to a confirmation poll. This should be corrected by legislative action.

What, if any, words need to be read in to the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?
Again, "reading in" is unconstitutional and illegal.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

ravensfire

Mar 26, 2006, 10:43 PM

Question
Swissempire asks for "a Judicial Review into the legality of said poll.", referring to the confirmation poll. He also asks if confirmation polls must be 48 hours in length.

Relevant Law
Section 3.II of the Code of Laws:
IIC. All official polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days to be binding, however it is recommended that binding polls be open from 3 to 4 days if possible.

Section 8.C.VI of the Code of Laws:
VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should <citizen name> serve as <office>?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll should last for 48 hours. If a majority of citizens who vote, excluding abstain, vote no, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term.

Citizen Comments
There have been no comments on this JR, although comments on JR8 may be relevant.

Analysis
There are two questions here, was the confirmation poll legal, and how long should they be. Essentially, the answer on the first depends on the second, so I'll address them in reverse order.

The relevant section is "This poll should last for 48 hours", with "should" being the key word. The Code of Laws is an extremely detailed and defined ruleset. It goes into also excruciating detail on various points. Based on this, the word "should" probably doesn't belong here, but it does, in the context, introduce variability in the length of the poll. I cannot see how this would require a poll of exactly 48 hours to be used.

Based on that, I cannot find any issues with the confirmation poll. It was posted in a timely manner, and clearly states the question. While I personally would have preferred donsig explain his reasoning in a second post, there is no requirement for that. donsig's explanation about the length of the poll is also supported by the Code of Laws (Section 3.II.IIC, "... recommended that binding polls be open from 3 to 4 days if possible." Given the ambiguity in Section 8.C.VI.VIA, this section of the Code of Laws is both relevant and governing.

Ruling
The confirmation poll was legal as posted by donsig.

There is no requirement that confirmation polls must be exactly 48 hours in duration.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

EDIT: JR sorted out (finally), sorry for trouble. Awaiting any CJ questions for this JR.

Curufinwe

Mar 26, 2006, 11:15 PM

Now for mine:

on amending the Code of laws:

No need to repost laws, ravensfire has already done that. It is my opinion that since. To answer the posed questions:

1) Does the amendment process given in Section 10 of the Code of Laws apply to a complete overhaul? Explain your reasoning.

Yes, as no alternative is given, therefore, by default, there is one amendment process.

2) Is this amendment process consistent with the Constitution?

Yes.

Second case-jointly held offices-

1) Does the intent of the authors of the Code of Laws and the Constitution have relevancy to the meaning of the same?

Absolutely not, this principle being repugnant to justice and the standard operation of courts the world round, including the innovative courts of Israel, South Africa, Canada and Europe.

2) If so, was it the intent of those authors that all named offices be held by a single person?

Not applicable

3) If so to question 2, what effect would this have on the legality of jointly holding offices?

Not applicable

4) In general, explain other relevant issues to the legality of jointly holding offices, in both the Code of Laws and the Constitution, and if the former is consistent with the latter. Should, if necessary, any words be read in to either of them to clarify this in the future and ensure constitutionality?

For the reasons given by my colleagues on the Court, the CoL refers repeatedly to a single winner for most elections, as does the Constitution. Therefore, currently I hold that offices are meant to be won by one person. However, if the needs of the future should change, then the meaning of those two documents would change as well, leaving the door open to future courts to redefine the documents as need be.

On to the third case, on assumption of presidential powers and the legality of the same:

1) In the Presidency is vacant, may the Secretary of State assume the Presidency, acting as a quasi-Vice President?

Regretfully, the law allowing this was replaced, meaning there is no clear-cut answer. However, the remaining section of the law implies that the SoS and SoW are to ensure continuity of powers, therefore implying a principle of a vice-presidency in the other members of the Triumvirate. Therefore, as the need of the time was, I hold the assumption of presidential powers by the SoS to be in that case legal, as we had need of a quick resolution to our problems.

2) If so, then must the Secretary of State resign in order to be consistent with Section 8, sub-section B of the Code laws? Is this consistent with the Constitution?

The Code of Laws is silent on whether the SoS actually assumes another office, or whether this is an out-growth of the office of the SoS. The Constitution is likewise silent. Lacking therefore a specific answer, I declare this question unanswerable according to the current CoL and constitution.

3) If so to all of the above, then were the procedures in Section 8, sub-section V, sub-sub-sections VA and VB followed? In what cases, if any, will these have different meanings? Are there any words that need to be read into the Code of Laws to ensure constitutionality, and, if so, what are they?

They were. The procedures are flexible, and given the needs of the time, and the fact that Chieftess had made her decision, more time would not have changed the outcome. However, the constitution and CoL do imply that a guarantee of participation is a fundamental principle. However, the urgency of the time allows for this principle to be ignored in pursuit of other principles.

4) Was Nobody's resignation, if he was appointed, legal? What, if any, words need to be read into the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?

All resignations are legal, and the individual resigning is the main authority on what constitutes a resignation. No outside authority may refuse a resignation.

In regards to the fourth matter, that of the time an appointed office is provisional:

) What, if at all, does the Code of Laws say to refer to the time an appointed office is considered provisional? Is this the same time period that that appointment is subject to a confirmation poll?

It doesn't say anything, an amendment is needed to clarify this.

2) What, if any, words need to be read in to the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?

Due to lack of consensus on the principle of reading in, I won't read in anything to the Code of Laws.

Since it wholly replaces the Code of Laws, Striders proposed amendment is legal in that respect. As well, it follows the Constitution. Therefore, I find that it be allowed to go ahead.

I'll deal with JR10 tomorrow.

There are my five decisions. Sorry for hte delay, but hopefully we can continue moving forward.